redhat-talk_ext3_file_system_causing_squid_cache_corruption_maybe

This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.



To: redhat-list@redhat.com
From: ABrady <kcsmart@kc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: ext2 or ext3 for RH 7.2?
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 01:13:05 -0600

On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 21:51:40 -0600 BobH <rwhart@netexpress.net> imparted
to us:
> Alright gurus, I am going to install RH 7.2 on another system that is
> not
> critical at this time - a borrowed 1u rack mount that has to go back
> to the
> office next week.  I am wondering if I should stick with ext2 ro move
> on to
> the ext3 file system.  Considering that is that my prior install ended
> up
> with an unrecoverable file system error after a power interruption
> [no, no
> ups but it was only a test setup].
> 
> So which to use for the present.  Is ext3 really ready for universal
> adoption?

I'm thoroughly pleased with ext3, EXCEPT the squid cache gets corrupted
after 2 or 3 days. I can delete it and recreate it, then it's corrupt in
2-3 days. I change to ext2 and no corruption whatsoever.

It's happened with Roswell when I tried it and I blew it off because it
was beta. It is has happened in 7.2 3 different times. It made no
difference whether it was format and create or upgrade an ext2 partition
to ext3.

It manifests itself in gving the wrong URL for certain pages (3
different times it was corrupted, I'd go to freshmeat and end up getting
MCM Systems or something). Restarting squid, rebooting, nothing repaired
the damage except wiping out the cache and creating the directories
again. Nothing prevented it from happening except using ext2.

So, now I keep /var as ext2 and have no problem. All else is ext3 and
nothing so far has gone amiss with anything other than squid.

===

To: redhat-list@redhat.com
From: <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Subject: Re: ext2 or ext3 for RH 7.2?
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 15:26:22 -0300

On Mi

the rest of The Pile (a partial mailing list archive)

doom@kzsu.stanford.edu