[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ubuntu-users
Subject:    Reliable file systems
From:       nyberg.kent () spray ! se (Kent Nyberg)
Date:       2004-11-06 16:43:41
Message-ID: 1099759421.19366.4.camel () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

l?r 2004-11-06 klockan 16:25 +0000 skrev Benjamin Roe:
> I just had to hit the reset button during boot because of a hard lockup
> (due to athcool, I think). Anyway, I've always used XFS for my systems
> as it's been very reliable. However, this reboot seems to have
> completely killed the filesystem. I had to run xfs_repair to get the
> system to let me login, and even now half of /usr, most of apt's package
> lists and various other things are either in lost+found or just gone.
> 
> I've always thought the point of journalled file systems was to avoid
> this sort of thing. I was especially surprised as few of the files were
> even open at the time of the reboot - it was quite early in the boot
> sequence.
> 
> Does anyone have any good tips for making sure this kind of thing is
> less likely to happen? Either mount options or alternative file systems,
> I guess.
> 
> I can find benchmarks for Linux file systems, but nothing on their
> reliability. I've had this happen with Reiserfs and ext3, but had hoped
> that XFS would be better.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 

Im not an expert, but as a normal user I have been using ext3 as default
since it was introduced in the Linux distributions i've use(d).
I have been forced to do a few resets, some times caused by lockups, and
some times iv'e just haven't had the time to wait for the system to shut
down. But, i have had no problems with filesystems being unusable.

Perhaps i have just been lucky, but as far as I know, I would regard
ext3 as a reliable file system.





[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]