On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 09:14 +0100, Peter Grandi wrote: > Being tempted by a nice 2.5" flash drive, I was wondering > whether using "nointegrity" as a mount option would mitigate > repeated writes to the journal area by disposing of the journal.
Yes, it should help in that regard. It will disable writes to the journal. > But it is not clear to me what "nointegrity" actually does, and > whether JFS will behave nicely with it. By nicely here I don't > mean quick restarts without 'fsck', I mean whether updates will > be done in a way that would minimize corruption of the filesystem. Really, there's no guarantee on what happens if the volume isn't unmounted cleanly. The original motivation for "nointegrity" was to allow a file system to be restored quickly from a backup (or otherwise populated in a repeatable fashion). If the system would fail for whatever reason, it was expected that the volume would be reformatted and the restore would be restarted from scratch. > One amusing aspect of flash drives is that not only is a journal > bad news (especially bad if written in chunks of less than 32KiB) > but they also should also make 'fsck' a lot faster (really small > access times). jfs really wasn't designed with flash drives in mind, and there are probably better options out there. > I still value JFS anyhow because of features, stability and > things like indexing. Thanks. I'm just not sure it's a very good filesystem for flash. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
