ext3 Bug in 2.4.20

[kwall@kurtwerks.com]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:48:42PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> On 12/03/02 16:23, kwall at kurtwerks.com wrote:
> >SuSE, too (I see Aaron pointed this out, too). You might push ext3 harder 
> >than I do. I have nothing against XFS; it's a superior solution. I'm here
> >at ext3, though, it ain't broken, so I don't feel the need to fix it.

Clearly, neither of us is giving an inch. ;-)

> The sad thing is that i didn't push ext3 any harder than XFS.  Ignoring 

[snicker]

I don't push my Mercury Sable any harder than my Lamborghini, but the 
Sable disintegrates at 180mph.  Go figger.

> bugs & instabilities, ext3 still requires a stupid time-consuming fsck. 
>   Yea, sure, the chances of losing data is significantly reduced, but 
> if i wanted to wait an hour for my terrabyte array to fix itself, i'd go 
> back to 1998.

Okay, now we're down to cases. ext3 is not immune to data loss, but it is
far less so than ext2. I don't have a terrabyte raid array to worry about,
so a "stupid time-consuming fsck" takes, oh, 10 minutes. Despite the
appearance, we agree. XFS is enterprise-ready; ext3 isn't. No argument.
ext3 shouldn't be used in the enterprise now that several high-performance
journaling filesystems are available. I think ext3 is fine for home use.
You, obviously, don't. :-)

Kurt
-- 
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
		-- Derek Bok, president of Harvard