On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We conducted some 3 years ago. Results were quite good for ext4 - in > many cases it could recover without a need to run ckfs.ext4, sometimes > it was not mountable, but ckfs.ext4 helped. > > On the opposite, ext3 constantly required ckfs.ext3, and sometimes died > so badly that even ckfs.ext3 could not recover it. We ran about 6000 cycles of power resets with linux 2.6.37. The test was to run 3 tar processes unpacking linux kernel archive and power off after about 15 seconds. There were only 3 failures when file system couldn't be mounted, but that was due to HDD failure (unreadable sector in journal area). e2fsck successfully recovered those corruptions. As for software itself, there was no single issue and we never needed to run fsck after power loss. So I'd say that ext4 is very tolerant to power losses at least in 2.6.37 assuming barriers and ordered data mode. I however understand this test is quite basic and any way results can be different for different kernels. -- 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
