xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: different behaviour between XFS and ext3

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: different behaviour between XFS and ext3
From: Juri Haberland <juri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:54:01 +0200
In-reply-to: <3F28CE63.80005@eigner.com>
References: <3F283E36.778CC934@mvista.com> <3F28CE63.80005@eigner.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
Klaus Strebel wrote:
> Blair Barnett wrote:

>> I have a simple shell script that writes numbers to a file and every 10
>> numbers does a sync and after 40 does a reboot. I've attached the script
>> to this email.
>> 
>> If the file is written to an EXT3 filesystem, then file contains the
>> numbers 1-40. However, if the file is written to an XFS 1.1,1.2, or 1.3
>> filesystem, then file contains the numbers 1-10.
>> 
>> Can someone tell me if this is a feature of XFS or a bug?

> your in danger do get flamed ;-) though:
> 
> The man-page of mount states in the options for ext3:

[snip]

> So, your ext3 does a data=ordered (if you didn't change it, obviously 
> you didn't, you would have known the man-page ;-) ), while xfs's 
> behaviour is more like data=writeback. In special circumstances this can 
> even lead to data loss on xfs (see a thread in linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, 
> metadata is written, extents for the file are zeroed out but data's not 
> written to, well should almost never happen in actual CVS kernel ;-)).

What buffles me a bit is that he does a "reboot -f" and, according to the
man page on my RedHat 7.3 system, reboot should sync the filesystems
prior to reboot. If he'd done a "reboot -fn" (-n = don't sync) then I'd
expect this, though.

Cheers,
Juri


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>