On Sep 11, 2008 07:43 +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > You are telling me things that I am aware of. The reason I wrote to > this group is to figure what would happen to an ext3 fs when the > external journal was lost, especially what happens when it is lost > on a filesystem where 'data=journal' is set. Losing a journal will, in 99% of the cases, mean the loss of only a few seconds of data. In some rare cases it may be that an inconsistency from a partially-updated commit will cause e2fsck to become confused and possibly clean up a small number more files than it would have otherwise. > Because if it is catastrophic, then it basically means that the > journal has to reside on a device that is as secure as to rest of > the data, meaning that if the data is on RAID6 then the journal > should be on RAID6 too. No, because RAID6 is terribly sucky for performance. If you need this kind of reliability triple-mirrored RAID 1 would be better. Much less CPU overhead, and no extra IO. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ext3-users mailing list Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
