Thursday, June 7, 2012, 4:10:51 PM, you wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 04:01:16PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >> >> BTW: Is there any (real) advantage to recreate the FS using the ext4's flex_bg instead of converting the ext3 to ext4 and using ext3 uninit_bg ? >> > It speeds up e2fsck times, and it allows for more contiguous free > space in the file system. So yes, there is an advantage to using a > native ext4 file system --- but of course that's a pain in the tuckus > for people with large RAID arrays. Which also explains why we were > mainly seeing this bug reported with people using large RAID devices; > those are the people who are most likely to want to do an > upgrade-in-place, because it's too painful to recreate and then copy > the data. Which is fine; one of the major features of ext4 is to be > able to support upgrades-in-place from ext3. Ok thx for the info and the fix ! -- Sander > Unfortunately, while I had native (unconverted) ext3 file systems in > my test matrix, I didn't have converted ext3 file system formats in my > regular regression test suite script. That is going to be fixed > shortly.... > - Ted -- Best regards, Sander mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
