I just cross-by an excellent article on various journaling techniques used in ext3. http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs8.html There are three modes in ext3: writeback mode, order
EXT3 seems to be a "true" journalling FS now. At one point in time though it was kludgy. Now EXT3 is definitely a good journaling filesystem, but it's speed, if you need it, does leave something to b
It looks like tux2 is taking a different approach, and one of the goals is total data integrity -- not just metadata. They are using phase trees. It's been described as "failsafe" whereas XFS and mos
It's meta, and "overly aggressive" in recovery. I.e., I've had two production NT 4.0 servers go to the journal when they should have done a full chkdsk instead. Both times the filesystems were toaste
-- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Have regard for your name, since it will remain for you longer than a great store of gold
Austin Gonyou wrote: It is wholly possible that NTFS could be like OpenBSD's filesystem, in that it is technically not "journaling", but is soft updates? This would offer the stability, but at a spee
That might make an interesting "poor man's undelete". Since you couldn't stop other data from stepping on the old data location. However, it would be helpful to be able to trace steps back and undele
It looks like tux2 is taking a different approach, and one of the goals is total data integrity -- not just metadata. They are using phase trees. It's been described as "failsafe" whereas XFS and mos
Why would they care? Databases work synchronously most of the time for the data but they might use a buffer for storing intermediate before they are actually written out. This happens with transactio