On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 21:31 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > AHA! This is an ext2 filesystem, since it doesn't have the > "has_journal" or "extents" features turned on: This is very odd. I haven't (intentionally) created a ext2 filesystem since ext3 became available. :-) Moreover /proc/mounts says it's an ext4 filesystem: /dev/mapper/rootvol_tmp-almalinux8_opt /opt ext4 rw,seclabel,relatime 0 0 Do ext2 filesystems actually mount successfully and quietly when mounted as ext4? Surely if one asks to mount an ext2 filesystem as ext4 mount should fail and complain, yes? Is https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UpgradeToExt4 still considered accurate, in terms of an in-place upgrade of ext2 to ext4 being sub-optimal? Is metadata locality the only thing you don't get with an in-place upgrade? If so, how important is that, really? > Thanks for the > metadump, it was very useful for root cause analysis. NPAA. Thank-you very much for your time and analysis on this issue. Cheers, b.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
