Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation ispossible

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Tue Aug 25 2009 - 05:32:42 EST


>>> Sure --- but name **any** filesystem that can deal with the fact that
>>> 128k or 256k worth of data might disappear when you pull out the flash
>>> card while it is writing a single sector?
>> First... I consider myself quite competent in the os level, yet I did
>> not realize what flash does and what that means for data
>> integrity. That means we need some documentation, or maybe we should
>> refuse to mount those devices r/w or something.
>> Then to answer your question... ext2. You expect to run fsck after
>> unclean shutdown, and you expect to have to solve some problems with
>> it. So the way ext2 deals with the flash media actually matches what
>> the user expects. (*)
> you loose data in ext2


>> OTOH in ext3 case you expect consistent filesystem after unplug; and
>> you don't get that.
> the problem is that people have been preaching that journaling
> filesystems eliminate all data loss for no cost (or at worst for minimal
> cost).
> they don't, they never did.
> they address one specific problem (metadata inconsistancy), but they do
> not address data loss, and never did (and for the most part the
> filesystem developers never claimed to)

Well, in case of flashcard and degraded MD Raid5, ext3 does _not_
address metadata inconsistency problem. And that's why I'm trying to
fix the documentation. Current ext3 documentation says:

#Journaling Block Device layer
#The Journaling Block Device layer (JBD) isn't ext3 specific. It was
#to add journaling capabilities to a block device. The ext3 filesystem
#will inform the JBD of modifications it is performing (called a
#The journal supports the transactions start and stop, and in case of a
#the journal can replay the transactions to quickly put the partition
#back into
#a consistent state.

There's no mention that this does not work on flash cards and degraded
MD Raid5 arrays.

> people somehow have the expectation that ext3 does the data equivalent of
> solving world hunger, it doesn't, it never did, and it never claimed
> to.

It claims so, above.

> personally I don't consider the two filesystems to be significantly
> different in terms of the data loss potential. I think people are more
> aware of the potentials with XFS than with ext3, but I believe that the
> risk of loss is really about the same (and pretty much for the same
> reasons)

Ack here.

>> Again, ext2 handles that in a way user expects it.
>> At least I was teached "ext2 needs fsck after powerfail; ext3 can
>> handle powerfails just ok".
> you were teached wrong. the people making these claims for ext3 didn't
> understand what ext3 does and doesn't do.

Cool. So... can we fix the documentation?
(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at