In message <20030821190811.GC1040@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Fedyk writes: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:54:37PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: > > Cool. Is there an ext3 patch that'll support the backup inode? Are there > > any issues of moving b/t the two modes of ext3 (back/forw compatibility > > etc.)? > > There's no need to support it in the kernel. The inode number is kept in > the superblock, and that's updated at mkfs and tune2fs time, not from the > kernel. > > Also, there isn't a second inode, it's just that the inode number is being > kept in the superblocks too. How does the kernel know to write the journal data first to some data block belonging to inode X, and then to another data block of inode Y? Both X and Y are journal inodes, right? Will there be a reserved inum other than 8, for the backup journal? Is there some magic in which the kernel can identify any number of special journal inodes? And while we're at it, why only one backup journal inode? Why not several? If it's good enough to have several copies of superblocks etc., then why not the journal (for those willing to pay the performance penalty)? Erez. _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
