1 |
Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman: |
2 |
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann |
3 |
> <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just |
5 |
>> makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a crash. |
6 |
>> Likely. Not a guarantee. Your data? No one cares. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
> That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe |
9 |
> everything gets written twice, which should make it fairly immune to |
10 |
> most forms of corruption. |
11 |
|
12 |
nope. Crash at the wrong time, data gone. FS hopefully sane. |
13 |
|
14 |
> |
15 |
> f2fs would also have this benefit. Data is not overwritten in-place |
16 |
> in a log-based filesystem; they're essentially journaled by their |
17 |
> design (actually, they're basically what you get if you ditch the |
18 |
> regular part of the filesystem and keep nothing but the journal). |
19 |
> |
20 |
>> If you want an fs that cares about your data: zfs. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
> I won't argue that the COW filesystems have better data security |
23 |
> features. It will be nice when they're stable in the main kernel. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
it is not so much about cow, but integrity checks all the way from the |
27 |
moment the cpu spends some cycles on it. Caught some silent file |
28 |
corruptions that way. Switched to ECC ram and never saw them again. |