Hi Miguel, Thanks for the reply. > "What people are saying"? So instead of understanding and solving some issue I was just a little worried at the response from Brent earlier quote "Don't play Russian Roulette and use ext4." . The really odd thing here is that on another raid disk created the "exact" same way with the exact same parameters to "mkfs" and identically mounted I have an EXT4 filesystem with different attributes, see below. Surely that should not happen. Also as I understand it one of the defaults is to have "journal" enabled not disabled. [root at vraid3 ~]# tune4fs -l /dev/sdc tune4fs 1.41.9 (22-Aug-2009) Filesystem volume name: <none> Last mounted on: /vraid3/vraid3 Filesystem UUID: 9e1d0cbf-f5f8-4116-9b60-a9e3c07da220 Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53 Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic) Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype needs_recovery extent flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash Default mount options: (none) Filesystem state: clean Errors behavior: Continue Filesystem OS type: Linux Inode count: 609484800 Block count: 2437935360 Reserved block count: 121896768 Free blocks: 2107056555 Free inodes: 609318938 First block: 0 Block size: 4096 Fragment size: 4096 Reserved GDT blocks: 442 Blocks per group: 32768 Fragments per group: 32768 Inodes per group: 8192 Inode blocks per group: 512 Flex block group size: 16 Filesystem created: Mon Jan 18 19:16:27 2010 Last mount time: Fri Oct 1 19:38:31 2010 Last write time: Fri Oct 1 19:38:31 2010 Mount count: 1 Maximum mount count: 28 Last checked: Fri Oct 1 18:50:37 2010 Check interval: 15552000 (6 months) Next check after: Wed Mar 30 18:50:37 2011 Lifetime writes: 146 GB Reserved blocks uid: 0 (user root) Reserved blocks gid: 0 (group root) First inode: 11 Inode size: 256 Required extra isize: 28 Desired extra isize: 28 Journal inode: 8 Default directory hash: half_md4 Directory Hash Seed: 820f990d-9af5-4fb3-9e58-1c4bd504ca12 Journal backup: inode blocks On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Miguel Medalha wrote: > >> Below is the output from "tune4fs". From what people are saying it looks >> like et4 may not be the way to go. >> > > "What people are saying"? So instead of understanding and solving some issue > you just jump wagon, maybe only to find some other issue there? > > ext4 is stable and works perfectly. You just have to configure it properly, > as with anything. > > Can you still recreate the filesystems? If so, study the parameters for ext4 > and use them. You will want "extents", because it provides a much better use > of disk space and avoids fragmentation. > > As you are, you can still create a journal on the filesystem you have, using > tune4fs. Look under switch -o (options). > > As an example, I give you some of what I have here with a ext4 partition: > > In /etc/fstab: > > LABEL=/data1 /data ext4 > defaults,data=journal,acl,user_xattr 1 2 > > tune2fs gives me the following: > > Filesystem features: has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index > filetype needs_recovery extent flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file > uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize > Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash > Default mount options: journal_data user_xattr acl > > Regards > > -- Dr Stephen Brooks http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/ Solar MHD Theory Group Tel :: 01334 463735 Fax :: 01334 463748 E-mail :: steveb at mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk --------------------------------------- Mathematical Institute North Haugh University of St. Andrews St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS SCOTLAND ---------------------------------------