Sticking with 2.6.30 is foolish. Bugs are fixed in ext[34] all the time, sometimes data loss bugs: by sticking with 2.6.30, you're depriving yourself of all of those.
(btw, you can put mount options in the superblock, and avoid modifying /etc/fstab.)
Posted May 23, 2010 11:44 UTC (Sun) by anton (guest, #25547)
[Link]
And new bugs are introduced, and if they are for a non-default option
like (now) data=ordered, they won't get noticed in time, and they
won't get fixed for quite some time; at least that's what the
non-default data=journal episode teaches. So what's higher: the risk
of data loss from a well-known kernel, or from a new kernel in a
non-default setting? Choosing the latter seems foolish to me.
Modifying fstab is not a big deal, why would I want to avoid it.
The problem with doing it in the superblock is that I have to do it
again when I transfer the system to another disk.
ext4 and data consistency
Posted May 23, 2010 11:50 UTC (Sun) by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
[Link]
How can I check whether my distribution has changed the default value of the option in its kernels?
ext4 and data consistency
Posted May 23, 2010 13:29 UTC (Sun) by anton (guest, #25547)
[Link]
One way is to mount such a file system with the default value (without
overriding the default with tune2fs or in fstab), and the checking the
actual options in /proc/mounts. That is what I do.
Another way would be to check CONFIG_EXT3_DEFAULTS_TO_ORDERED in
the kernel config file.
ext4 and data consistency
Posted May 23, 2010 13:55 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Well, OK, you're quite within your rights to stick with an old kernel: but I hope you encounter no other security bugs, or stability bugs, or new hardware, or *anything* else that might require a new kernel!