ext3 Bug in 2.4.20

[kwall@kurtwerks.com]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:07:59PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> On 12/03/02 17:23, kwall at kurtwerks.com wrote:
> >Precisely. ext3 preserves compatibility with many terrabytes of ext2 data.
> >XFS, ReiserFS, JFS, AFS, blahFS are replacements that require considerably
> >more work to implement in existing systems. Moreover, not that this is a
> >bad thing, you also have to learn new commands and habits for administering
> >them. 
> 
> This isn't entirely true.  I'd wager that there's alot more XFS, AFS & 
> JFS boxen out there than ext2/3, with alot more data on them.

I'll give you the quantity of data. But "there's more of them so
it's better" doesn't wash. There's more Windows boxen with more data
than anything else, but they sure aren't better than a Linux system
running ext2. ;-)

> If ext3 has worked great for some folks, i'm happy for them & their 
> data.  The bottom line for me is that just a single problem with ext3 
> was more than i had with XFS.  Ignoring how much time a fsck takes on 
> ext2/3 still doesn't make it any better.  Just watching & praying that 
> everything turns out ok is not my idea of a good time.

I'm not ignoring the amount of time fsck requires. I'm saying I haven't
needed it. I don't watch and pay that everything turns out OK. It just
does. I'm happy that you're happy with XFS. I repeat: XFS is excellent.
Save for the recent oops with ext3, it's run well here and lots of other
places. 

Kurt
-- 
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.