| |||||||||||||
Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problemTs'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problemPosted Mar 13, 2009 17:56 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem
Well, after I saw that with nodelalloc "the performance will (still) be better than ext3", I immediately made that my default mount option. Frankly I don't give a f... about extreme performance, if I risk to lose my data(at least with respect to what was the common data loss rate of ext3 with the default options). This is not a discussion about what API is better and if we need to break an old API to create one better, we're talking about data loss. Being ext4 the evolution of ext3, I consider this a regression.
(Log in to post comments)
Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem Posted Mar 13, 2009 23:34 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
"""
Well, after I saw that with nodelalloc "the performance will (still) be better than ext3", I immediately made that my default mount option. """
On the other hand, you are now on the less well tested path. I remember an ext3 bug a few years ago that caused data loss... but only for those people who mounted "data=journal" just to be safe. I'm always a bit nervous about straying from defaults.
|
|||||||||||||