Alle 23:02, gioved=C3=AC 1 luglio 2004, Paul Wagland ha scritto:
> On Wed 30 Jun 2004 20:38:41 CEST, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> > Alle 09:56, mercoled? 30 giugno 2004, Paul Wagland ha scritto:
> >> On Jun 30, 2004, at 1:55, James Neal wrote:
> >> I normally hate doing this... but me too!
> >> Even worse, it would appear that UML and reiserfs don't play nice...
> >> when the UML does crash I tend to end up with some pretty massive
> >> filesystem corruptions, to the point where my UML will not boot
> >> anymore, and I spent over an hour just now trying to coax it back to
> >> life by copying in and replacing all of the corrupted binaries.
> > If you didn't enable the synchronous UBD access (near to the UBD options
> > in the kernel configuration), that's almost expected, as the help
> > explains (IIRC), for journaled filesystems (although some people claim
> > ext3 does not need it, and this could be true, even because reiserfs
> > works like ext3 "data=3Dwriteback" mode, which is less safe than the
> > default ext3
> > "data=3Dordered").
> Ah. Ok, I assume by this you mean that I should be doing ubd1s=3Dblah ins=
> of ubd1=3Dblah. I will try that, it looks like it should at least stop th=
> screwage. On a different sidenote, what is the "recommended" filesystem f=
Well, I speak about CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBD_SYNC (Always use synchronous access =
UBD), but maybe what you suggest is the same thing (the kernel option would=
turn "s(ync)" on for all UBDs, maybe).
I've no idea of a "recommended" filesystem; I only know that ext3 *seems* n=
to require that UBD are accessed in a synchronous way. (I.e. somebody says =
never experienced data loss with ext3 with async UBDs).
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729