On 2/14/11 2:14 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > W dniu 14 lutego 2011 20:47 użytkownik Eric Sandeen > <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał: >> On 2/13/11 12:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >>> On 02/12/2011 11:52 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>>> On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: ... >>> If ext3 was running fine without barriers for all these years why is this >>> such a problem with ext4? Does ext4 do something differently that barriers >>> are now required? >> >> barriers are always required for integrity if you have a volatile write cache; >> this is true for ext3 as well. You may not see problems on every power loss, >> but eventually you will. >> >> The problems are often found after the fact, with a subsequent runtime or fsck >> error, so the culprit may not be immediately obvious. > > What are the recommended "best practices" for mounting ext3/4 file system? > > For performance - noatime, for those who care about data integrity - > "barrier=1,data=journal" or just "barrier=1" if we also care about > performance. Am I missing something? There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details; without that, "defaults" is best practice. :) (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that safe default was never accepted upstream) -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
