similar to: Frequent metadata corruption with ext3 + hard power-off

[ If this is explained somewhere else (HOWTO or FAQ), please give me a pointer. ] Is there any way to mix loop-device (and in particular) loop-AES and ext3 together in data journaling mode? Ie. bottom -> to -> top ext3 - loop-AES - ext3 raw - loop-AES - ext3 Or am I shooting myself to leg, I am? BR, Jani -- Jani Averbach

Back, After to get all informations i received, i put them in table as follow: see attachment file. Specialists can they tell me if they agree with my conclusions ? Thank's for your good job. Fabien. -- Fabien COMBERNOUS - IT Engineer eProcess - Parc Club du Millénaire Batiment n° 6 1025 rue Henri Becquerel - 34000 Montpellier FRANCE http://www.eprocess.fr - +33 (0)4 67 13 84 50

Hi, I've been wondering exactly what you gain by using journaled mode over ordered mode. Are there any known cases where journaled mode could recover where ordered mode wouldn't? Mike

hi i got 2 questions and maybe someone could shed some light: a) i'm using kernel 2.4.17 and use ext3 in it. is it possible that the whole system is slower than with ext2? i switched back to ext2 (great feature!!!) and the system's response seemed somewhat better. should/could there be such a effect as double writing of journaled data? i didnt activate debugging (jbd). b) is reiserfs

My application always needs to sync file data after writing. I don't want anything handing around in the kernel buffers. I am wondering what is the best method to accomplish this. 1. Do I use EXT2 and use fdatasync() or fsync()? 2. Do I use EXT2 and mount with the "sync" option? 3. Do I use EXT2 and use the O_DIRECT flag on open()? 4. Do I use EXT3 in full journaled mode,

quotacheck takes longer than fsck on our ext2 fileservers. Is this redundant in ext3? Do I need data=journal? Cheers, Matt

Given that the default journaling mode of ext3 (i.e. ordered), does not guarantee write ordering after a crash, is this journaling mode safe enough to use for a database such as Oracle? If so, how are out of sync writes delt with? Kind regards, Herta Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Hi, can someone tell me whether applications can expect the write requests they make to be executed in order? For instance, suppose an application requests that a file be deleted, and then that another file be moved to an unrelated place. Will these events always happen in that order? Or to put it another way, if something unexpected happens in the meantime (say the computer crashes), is it

Hi, well I've deployed ext3 on two machines already and so far it does its job excellently at no (for me) noticable performance loss. I hope it gets incorporated into stock kernels by Linus soon. Anyways I've been hearing about ext3 supporting full-data journalling on a per-file basis but couldn't find any detailed info about it. Even tried grep'ing throught the source. How

I am using RedHat 7.2 w/ kernel 2.4.7-10. My / filesystem is configured as ext3. I want to change it to use data=journaled instead of ordered. If I mount it from a boot floppy, it mounts fine. (mount /dev/hda2 /mnt -t ext3 -o data=journal). I have attempted to find the correct procedure to start it up as journaled from grub to no avail. I have created a new initrd image that works fine with

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. --

Hello, Many warm thank yous to Bill Rugolsky Jr. and Stephen Tweedie for their help on this one. Both pointed out that since the file system is journaled, if the primary box (nas1) were to crash, the secondary box should mount the ext3 file system without any problems. Depending on the nature of the journal (metadata journaling and/or data journaling), we may have little or no data loss. Bill

Hi Ted and all, I have a couple of questions near the end of this message, but first I have to describe my problem in some detail. The power failure on Thursday did something evil to my ext3 file system (box running RH9+patches, ext3, /dev/md0, raid5 driver, 400GB f/s using 3x200GB IDE drives and one hot-spare). The f/s got corrupt badly and the symptoms are very similar to what Eddy described

Peter Nelson wrote: > Hans Reiser wrote: > > >Are you sure your benchmark is large enough to not fit into memory, > >particularly the first stages of it? It looks like not. reiser4 is > >much faster on tasks like untarring enough files to not fit into ram, > >but (despite your words) your results seem to show us as slower unless > >I misread them.... >

Hi, I need to migrate about 8Tb of data from a Mac Fibre Channel RAID to by LVM Ext3 Linux Fibre Channel RAID. For speed I planned to connect both RAID's to my CentOS Server and copy the data directly. The Mac volume is formatted as Mac OS Extended (Journaled) it seems that CentOS 5.4 supports reading HFS volumes but not HFSPlus volumes. Is there a way of getting this volume to mount so I

I think I have this one solved, I hope. I think what Andreas and I are running into are a few different assertions. One being the LVM lvm_do_pv_flush caused assertion which is related directly to invalidate_buffers() being called which then triggers refile_buffer() on a journaled buffer, which appears clean in all other ways according to the checks in refile_buffer(). The following is what

I've spent the better part of two working days reading the NUT code and documentation and thinking about typical modern use cases for the software. I'm now questioning whether I want to get any further involved with this project, because it seems to me that the codebase is a huge and complicated pile of machinery mainly aimed at solving problems that no longer matter. I could be wrong

I managed to install 0.5d today. Got all 3 of my mounts converted (even '/' though it was a pain in the ass). Now on boot, I see: mounted /dev/hda1 on / EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode and the exact same thing for /dev/hda3 and /dev/hdb1. they all come up and appear to be working. so is this normal? Or did I manage to screw up somewhere? -- Douglas J. Hunley (Linux User

I have a question regarding a thread in June called "Distinct transactions", which I have included below. It seems to me that the solution is not atomic for daemons opening the file as there is a moment where the filename is not in the directory (i.e. unlink then link). In summary, poster Charlie Woloszynski wanted to update a configuration file in a safe manner (i.e. as a

Hi, After our big ext3 file server crashes, I notice the fsck spends some time replaying the journals (about 5-10 mins for all volumes on the server in question). I guess it must do this should you want to mount the volumes as ext2. My question--is it (theoretically) possible to tell fsck only to replay half-finished and to knock out incomplete transactions from the journals, leaving the kernel