On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 15:12 -0500, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
> Rading this thread about xfs vs ext3, and how ext3 is safer...
>
> I just got ("just" as in "today") an error on one of my ext3 file
> systems. Reason? Userspace application allocated a larger chunk of
> memory, kernel generated OOM (while there was about 1 gig of swap
> still free), and an completely unrelated ext3 file system (app in
> question wasn't doing anything on it) got an error, automatically was
> remoutned read-only, and marked as in need of fsck.
>
> I've unmounted it, run fsck on it (it found some errors and fixed
> them), and now each time I try to mount that file system kernel
> reports the file system is marked as having error from previous mount
> and that it is in need of fsck.
>
> <flame mode="on">
> Now, I wouldn't call this kind of thing "stable" operating system or
> "stable" file system. If application asks for too much memory it
> should get killed (btw, system had 1 gig of RAM and application asked
> for like 600 meg, plus there was plenty of swap space free too -- so I
> wouldn't call this a case of app asking too much). You definetely
> don't end up with corrupted file system.
> </flame>
shit breaks ... it's life :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060816/a7a45cd4/attachment-0005.sig>