On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 13:01 +0300, Andrey Sidorov wrote: > 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. Very different experience indeed, shoes that everyone has to conduct own power-cut tests in own system. I did not say that we were running on eMMC. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
