From: Richard B. Gilbert on
Colin B. wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> Colin B. wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> With journalling turned off, you will definitely want to do an fsck.
>>> Breaking and rebooting will cause more problems, not fix them. It *may*
>>> be able to hide filesystem corruption, so you're not as healthy as you
>>> think. That's not a good thing.
>>>
>>> The "other guy" is an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Ignore him.
>>>
>>> Colin
>> Is there some reason not to turn on journaling?
>>
>> Journaling can make things run slower. Basically it writes "I'm going
>> to update block 24,736" to a file, does the update and, on successful
>> completion, deletes the "I'm going to update. . . ." and is done. If
>> the system crashes while doing the update it reboots and finds that it
>> was in the process of doing an update, had not completed it, and applies
>> the failed transaction.
>
> I noticed that the OP was not using logging, which is why I mentioned it.
>
> Years ago, when logging first became available, it could be very slow in
> some circumstances, due (mostly) to bugs. I haven't seen that for ages
> though. I'd say that if you're so close to the edge that you need the
> performance gain from disabling logging, then you're too close to the
> edge. I can't imagine anyone deliberately disabling logging anymore, unless
> they're misguided (or using ZFS).
>
> Colin

A great deal will depend on the read/write balance. If most operations
are reads you probably will not notice any performance problems. If
most operations are writes you will see some effect. Try logging for a
while. It may be more trouble than it's worth. It may save you from
having to fsck a file system two or three times a week. Trying it is
the easiest way to find out if it's worth the effort.