On Apr 20, 2002 15:31 +0300, Jani Averbach wrote: > I would like to know how well ext3/(ext2) will tolerate underlaying > errors (I am planning to use loop-AES backed ext3 fs). Ext2 (and ext3 by extension) has been in use for a long time, and has evolved to handle disk errors very well. However, one of the important mechanisms for keeping ext2/ext3 robust is that e2fsck is very good at finding and fixing errors. Even if you are using ext3 it is still a good idea to let the mount_count and check_interval counters force periodic fscks to detect data errors (you can use tune2fs to set the check intervals). > So if there is 1024 bytes corruption of data what will be the worst case: > > - If this data belongs to some file, this part of data(file) has been > lost? Correct. > - If this data belongs to superblock, I have to repair ext3 and use > another superblock? Correct. e2fsck will do this automatically. > - If this data belongs to journaling system, I have to ??? or ??? will > happen? At worst the journal recovery will copy a bad block to somewhere else in the filesystem, and then e2fsck will have to clean it up. > - If this data is unused, it will not cause harm at all? Correct. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
