gjournal and Softupdates

[Teufel]

Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:

>> [...] If so, this would be an advantage over SU, as 
>> it does surely not use the new introduced BIO_FLUSH. [...]
>>     
> Soft-updates doesn't handle disk write caches at all.
>   
you're totaly right. I was refering to the assumption of SU that the
drive cache will not "lie" about its handling.

>> [...] In the other hand i've seen couple of other JFS that went corrupt for "no reason". I don't want to be paranoid, but i 
>> really want to be "sure" that the design is trustable.
>>     
>
> Of course a bug in file system (or gjournal) implementation is still
> possible and can lead to file system corruption, but such a bug can
> still corrupt file system in the way it will not be fixable by fsck.
>

sooner or later bugs should be fixed. At least i will do some terrible 
test to gjournal in the next days. So in case expect some feedback.

> From what I saw, file systems with journaling still enforce fsck every X
> reboots or on the next reboot after Y days of uptime, whatever comes first.
>   

That is also my experience. So hopefully gjournal will be an exception
for this in the future :-)

Thanks for clarifying and the great job.

Stephan