Ubuntu becomes unusable - force fsck when needed

Samuel Cormier-Iijima sciyoshi at gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 07:52:33 BST 2006

When/if Reiser4 gets included into the mainline kernel, would that be
a good candidate as the default filesystem?


On 9/3/06, Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net> wrote:
> Edward Murrell <edward at dlconsulting.com> writes:
> > Hervé Fache wrote:
> >> The startup scripts would run 'fsck -y' instead of 'fsck -a' after a
> >> reboot if only we created a /fix file on failure...
> >>
> >> We could also use reiserfs by default, although I think ext3 is more
> >> reliable in case of power failure. Apart from when it goes wrong like
> >> here of course!
> No file system is perfect, and they can all go wrong, especially in the
> face of low end hardware[1] that copes badly with power issues because
> that costs the manufacturer less.
> ReiserFS probably doesn't represent a significant win for most people,
> as it is no better (and, depending on who you ask, significantly worse)
> at resisting corruption in this sort of situation.
> > If ext3 is going to be replaced, would JFS be better?
> Probably not.  It isn't as broadly used as the other options, which
> means more risk from undetected issues, and it doesn't seem to offer any
> compelling performance or reliability advantages.
> > XFS is equally as capable, but last I checked, had has issues with
> > GRUB.
> This probably isn't a win, especially in the marginal situation being
> discussed, because XFS decided to trade off data integrity for security,
> and so is more prone to data loss in the event of a power failure.[2]
> > I've heard various reports and had my own issues with ReiserFS doing
> > funny things with data.
> ReiserFS has some design choices that are, in some cases, problematic.
> Most of them are edge cases, like the inability to store images of
> ReiserFS file systems on a ReiserFS file system, but they are certainly
> present.
> Personally, I would advocate the safe approach of sticking with ext3, as
> it offers a good trade-off between performance and reliability, is well
> understood, and can be tuned to improve those trade-offs for
> individuals.
> It is also, unlike some of the other file systems, relatively easy to
> repair in the event of failure -- and certainly is no worse than the
> alternatives.
> Regards,
>         Daniel
> Footnotes:
> [1]  As in, pretty much all of it these days.
> [2]  This may be a *good* decision, in many ways, but it does reduce the
>      utility of the file system in the event of a crash, as you lose
>      data where ext3 risks exposing private information.
> --
> Digital Infrastructure Solutions -- making IT simple, stable and secure
> Phone: 0401 155 707        email: contact at digital-infrastructure.com.au
>                  http://digital-infrastructure.com.au/
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list