Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon 22-02-10 08:55:53, Theodore Tso wrote: >> As for quota --- quite seriously --- if you have mission critical users, >> I'd suggest that they not use quota. Dimitry has been turning up all >> sorts of bugs in the quota subsystem, many of which are just as >> applicable to ext3. The real issue is that quota hasn't received as much >> testing as other file system features --- in any file system, not just >> ext4. > I don't agree with this. I know about quite a few large customers > depending on quotas on their servers and they run on ext3 / reiserfs quite > happily. Dmitry's patches touching the generic code were mostly cleanups, > the fixes were just in the delayed allocation handling but that never > gets executed for ext3 or reiserfs... Stability is relative thing. I's quite depends on usecase. For example after triggering bug on not empty orphan list on ext3_umount i've started full orphan-list management code revision. And both ext3/ext4 appears to be almost broken in case of errors. But nobody seems never catch it in real life. But still at that time i have triggered: 1) non empty orphan list on umount for both (ext3 and ext4) 2) on_disk linked list corruption for both 3) data blocks beyond i_size 4) bit-difference on fsck for both Currently i'm working on fixes. It takes week or so. So at least i'll reduce "project_id quota" spam flow a bit. > I don't say there cannot be bugs and certainly quota code has less > exposure than other more used filesystem parts. But I don't know about > any serious quota issue on ext3 / reiserfs in last two years or so > (except the one that was caused by Dmitry's fixes ;). This time i'll try to give enough test coverage. > > Honza -- 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
