Ext3 users - Jul 2001 - Is this list active?

I subscribed this morning but have no traffic.  Sometimes no traffic is 
a good thing.  Since I've gone to ext3 on my 2.4.5 kernel, the only 
time I ever had problems was when the filesystems were not unmounted 
cleanly and the journal was lost.  About 60 minutes of searching and 
reading and I found out how to recreate the journal.

So far, so pleased with ext3fs.


-- 
      alt.os.linux.caldera FAQ       Linux Step-by-Step guides
                            http://www.ujoint.org
The Universal Joint - Connecting Unix, Linux, and that other OS ....
                    Operated by Linux user #201684 
  4:03pm  up 15 days,  4:59,  3 users,  load average: 0.19, 0.06, 0.01

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 04:05:45PM -0500, John Hiemenz wrote:
 
> I subscribed this morning but have no traffic.  Sometimes no traffic is 
> a good thing.
Yes, it's active, but we're not getting a whole lot of trouble
reported.  
> Since I've gone to ext3 on my 2.4.5 kernel, the only 
> time I ever had problems was when the filesystems were not unmounted 
> cleanly and the journal was lost.  About 60 minutes of searching and 
> reading and I found out how to recreate the journal.
Would you care to describe this further?  "Losing" a journal sounds
like a serious sort of event!

Cheers,
 Stephen

On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 04:05:45PM -0500, John Hiemenz
wrote:
> I subscribed this morning but have no traffic.  Sometimes no traffic is 
> a good thing.  Since I've gone to ext3 on my 2.4.5 kernel, the only 
> time I ever had problems was when the filesystems were not unmounted 
> cleanly and the journal was lost.  About 60 minutes of searching and 
> reading and I found out how to recreate the journal.
You shouldn't need to do this.  After a crash with ext2, e2fsck will
repair the fs so that ext3 can mount it again (in journaling mode.)

On an almost (but not entirely) unrelated tangent, has anyone else
running ext3 over RAID-1 seen really bad journal replay times?  e2fsck
prints "replaying journal" and then grinds away at the disk for a good
thirty to forty-five seconds.  My (uneducated!) guess is that fsck is
competing for disk bandwidth with background mirror reconstruction.

Disks are UDMA-33 running 2.4.5-10 from Rawhide.  /usr is a pair of
10gb partitions on separate channels running in RAID-1.  ext3 on any
non-RAID partition seems to recover in no time at all.

Any thoughts?  Is this a bug?  XFS didn't appear to suffer from this
problem, but AFAIK xfs only does kernel-side journal replay.

-ed

John Hiemenz wrote:
> 
> I subscribed this morning but have no traffic. Sometimes no traffic is
> a good thing.  Since I've gone to ext3 on my 2.4.5 kernel, the only
> time I ever had problems was when the filesystems were not unmounted
> cleanly and the journal was lost.  About 60 minutes of searching and
> reading and I found out how to recreate the journal.
> 
> So far, so pleased with ext3fs.
Low traffic here. ext3 usually works for me. :-)

Best regards,
Martin Stricker
-- 
Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
Star Trek Rollenspiel: http://www.uss-republic.de/
Webmaster-Forum: http://www.masterportal24.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.cgi
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/

On Wednesday 11 July 2001 20:53, you wrote:
> John Hiemenz wrote:
> > I am running Parallelizing fsck version 1.19 (13-Jul-2000) .
>
> You should upgrade to 1.22.  There are significant fixes
> in the latest e2fsck.
>
Hmmm.. I had.   Have to do it again.   Apparently I had forgotten about this 
when I did an rpm upgrade to my system, I did a wildcard upgrade with --force 
and blew my more recent version away. ahh.....