On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:45:14PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote: > El Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:04:27 -0700 Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi?: > > > > > Journaled filesystems have a much smaller chance of having problems after a > > crash. > > I've had (several) filesystem corruption in a desktop system with (several) > journaled filesystems on several disks. (They seem pretty stable these days, > though) > > However I've not had any fs corrution in ext2; ext2 it's (from my experience) > rock stable. > > Personally I'd consider twice the really "serious" option for a serious server.
I've had corruption caused by hardware, and nothing else. I haven't run into any serious bugs. But with servers, the larger your filesystem, the longer it will take to fsck. And that is bad for uptime. Period. I would be running ext2 also if I wasn't running so many test kernels (and they do oops on you), and I've been glad that I didn't have to fsck every time I oopsed (though I do every once in a while, just to make sure).
