[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: another seriously corrupt ext3 -- pesky journal

In message <20030821190811 GC1040 matchmail com>, Mike Fedyk writes:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:54:37PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > Cool.  Is there an ext3 patch that'll support the backup inode?  Are there
> > any issues of moving b/t the two modes of ext3 (back/forw compatibility
> > etc.)?
> There's no need to support it in the kernel.  The inode number is kept in
> the superblock, and that's updated at mkfs and tune2fs time, not from the
> kernel.
> Also, there isn't a second inode, it's just that the inode number is being
> kept in the superblocks too.

How does the kernel know to write the journal data first to some data block
belonging to inode X, and then to another data block of inode Y?  Both X and
Y are journal inodes, right?  Will there be a reserved inum other than 8,
for the backup journal?

Is there some magic in which the kernel can identify any number of special
journal inodes?

And while we're at it, why only one backup journal inode?  Why not several?
If it's good enough to have several copies of superblocks etc., then why not
the journal (for those willing to pay the performance penalty)?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]