On 12 May 2009 15:13, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> My concern was basically if it is safe to skip zeroing for internal journal. > > Strictly speaking, no. Most of the time you'll get lucky. The place > where you will get into trouble will be is if there is leftover > uninitialized garbage (particularly if you are reformatting an > existing ext3/4 filesystem) that looks like a journal log block, with > the correct journal transaction number, *and* the system crashes > before the journal has been completely written through at least once. So, what Andreas explained yesterday also applies to the internal log case. I see. Would you say it's possible to prevent this, for instance somehow say, by means checksums as Andreas suggested? > What precisely is your concern? Normally the journal isn't that big, > and it's a contiguous write --- so it doesn't take that long. Are you > worried about the time it takes, or trying to avoid some writes to an > SSD, or some other concern? If we know it's an SSD, where reads are It's an mmc and it (mkfs) runs almost two times faster without zeroing the journal. The only thing I'm worried about is the time that it takes for mke2fs -j to complete. I've done some caching trickery to unix_io.c which I'm going to post here separately, but most of the time seems to be taken by the journal. > fast, and writes are slow, I suppose we could scan the disk looking > for potentially dangerous blocks and zero them manually. It's really > not clear it's worth the effort though. Hm. This might work, I'll look into it. Thanks for the idea! Regards, -- Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
