1 |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann |
2 |
<volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
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 |
|
9 |
That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe |
10 |
everything gets written twice, which should make it fairly immune to |
11 |
most forms of corruption. |
12 |
|
13 |
f2fs would also have this benefit. Data is not overwritten in-place |
14 |
in a log-based filesystem; they're essentially journaled by their |
15 |
design (actually, they're basically what you get if you ditch the |
16 |
regular part of the filesystem and keep nothing but the journal). |
17 |
|
18 |
> If you want an fs that cares about your data: zfs. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
I won't argue that the COW filesystems have better data security |
22 |
features. It will be nice when they're stable in the main kernel. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Rich |