On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:49:23 -0400, Roberto Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pigeon wrote: <attribution> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:49:26 +1300, <was> cr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <lost> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > I think, with my capability for pushing the wrong button at > > > critical moments, I might be safer to stick with ext2 then. > > > > Well, I admit that I found out about this the hard way. But I think > > that was when I was running slink; the woody versions of the tools > > all seem to spit out warnings if you try and treat ext3 as ext2. > > > > AIUI running fsck on ext2 will return the filesystem to a logically > > consistent state but doesn't guarantee that you won't lose or > > corrupt any files - as you've found out. ext3's journalling is a big > > safeguard against this. It is unfortunate that power failures are > > one area where this safeguard is noticeably incomplete. ..amen! And those includes the wee ones, where the machines keeps running, and gives the users _no_ useful warning. In some cases, such as /var/log and var/spool, a panic is better than data loss, for /usr, /etc, etc ;-) , running read-only is acceptable, and in some eerie cases, "errors=continue" is used. > If you have and ext3 that you want to revert to ext2, you can just: > > tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/hdXX ..and then 'fsck -y /dev/hdXX ; tune2fs -O has_journal /dev/hdXX ', which _is_ the right thing to do, whenever the journal is wrong. .._is_ this possible to do without reboots? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
