Hi All, When a couple of EXT4 filesystems are mounted in a server I get the message Oct 1 18:49:42 sraid3 kernel: EXT4-fs (sdb): mounted filesystem without journal Oct 1 18:49:42 sraid3 kernel: EXT4-fs (sdc): mounted filesystem without journal in the system logs. My confusion is why are they mounted without a journal? They were both created with mkfs -t ext4 /dev/sdb mkfs -t ext4 /dev/sdc and mounted in "/etc/fstab" with /dev/sdb /sraid3 ext4 defaults 1 2 /dev/sdc /sraid4 ext4 defaults 1 2 both are 11T and so I would prefer as much stability as possible, io performance is not an issue on either device just integrity so I thought the journal would be default and necessary. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Steve -- Dr Stephen Brooks http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/ Solar MHD Theory Group Tel :: 01334 463735 Fax :: 01334 463748 E-mail :: steveb at mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk --------------------------------------- Mathematical Institute North Haugh University of St. Andrews St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS SCOTLAND ---------------------------------------
Can you give us the output of "tune4fs -l /dev/sdb" ? Does it show " has_journal" under "Filesystem features"? If it doesn't, you can input the following: tune4fs -o journal_data The option "journal_data" fits the case in which you don't care about the fastest speed but you put your focus on data integrity instead. By the way, if you only used the defaults when creating the ext4 filesystems, I am afraid that you didn't use the ext4 specific features that give it a real advantage over ext3. Some of them cannot be configured latter, they have to be specified when you create the filesystem.
On 4 October 2010 20:07, Steve Brooks <steveb at mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote:> both are 11T and so I would prefer as much stability as possible, io > performance is not an issue on either device just integrity so I thought > the journal would be default and necessary. > > Any thoughts would be much appreciated. >My two pence would be to switch to XFS then, much more stable (not that ext4 is particularly unstable, but XFS is rock, IMO). -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and J others...?
Hi Brent, Thanks for the reply. I have to make a decision yes, it is not an easy one either, I read have so many different reports, opinions that I now feel my brain has become rather scrambled.. Wondering now if I should just have smaller filesystems and stick with EXT3.. I have never used XFS and have therefore no experience with it and this I guess leaves me short of confidence. On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Brent L. Bates wrote:> It is up to you to decide. Do you go with a file system, XFS, that has > 15 YEARS of use and EXABYTES of storage behinding it? Or do you go with > ext4, something that has just been declared `stable'. How important is the > data on those drives? Will you have excellent tape backup of that data not > just copies on another ext4 file system, but verified tape backups? > > I prefer using something I know works and has survived numerous system > crashes with out missing a beat. >Steve