<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_30_161233</id>
	<title>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243701540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dr\_dracula writes <i>"Earlier this year, the ext4 filesystem was <a href="//linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/24/2124209&amp;tid=164">accepted into the Linux kernel</a>. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that some applications, such as KDE, were <a href="//linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/1730247&amp;tid=198">at risk of losing files</a> when used on top of ext4. This was diagnosed as a rift between the design of the ext4 filesystem and the design of applications running on top of ext4. The crux of the problem was that applications were relying on ext3-specific behavior for flushing data to disk, which ext4 was not following. Recent kernel releases include patches to address these issues. My questions to the early adopters of ext4 are about whether the patches have performed as expected. What is your overall feeling about ext4? Do you think is solid enough for most users to trust it with their data? Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3? Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dr \ _dracula writes " Earlier this year , the ext4 filesystem was accepted into the Linux kernel .
Shortly thereafter , it was discovered that some applications , such as KDE , were at risk of losing files when used on top of ext4 .
This was diagnosed as a rift between the design of the ext4 filesystem and the design of applications running on top of ext4 .
The crux of the problem was that applications were relying on ext3-specific behavior for flushing data to disk , which ext4 was not following .
Recent kernel releases include patches to address these issues .
My questions to the early adopters of ext4 are about whether the patches have performed as expected .
What is your overall feeling about ext4 ?
Do you think is solid enough for most users to trust it with their data ?
Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3 ?
Is there any incentive to move to ext4 , other than sheer curiosity ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dr\_dracula writes "Earlier this year, the ext4 filesystem was accepted into the Linux kernel.
Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that some applications, such as KDE, were at risk of losing files when used on top of ext4.
This was diagnosed as a rift between the design of the ext4 filesystem and the design of applications running on top of ext4.
The crux of the problem was that applications were relying on ext3-specific behavior for flushing data to disk, which ext4 was not following.
Recent kernel releases include patches to address these issues.
My questions to the early adopters of ext4 are about whether the patches have performed as expected.
What is your overall feeling about ext4?
Do you think is solid enough for most users to trust it with their data?
Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3?
Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157127</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1243771440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ext4 does need fixing.  It's beyond stupidity to sync meta-data to disc more frequently than the real data that programs actually call upon a filesystem to store safely.  This rename problem is just the tip of the ice-berg when data and meta-data is not synced up to the same point in time.</p><p>The problem simply is that actions taken by programs are no longer seemingly executed in order.  Actions have to be separated into actions that affect meta-data, and actions that affect file contents.  When you do the following actions:</p><p>1) create file<br>2) write data to file<br>3) rename/delete some other file<br>4) write some more data</p><p>Programs should not have to care about the fact that only actions 2 and 4 actually modify file contents.  They only need to know that in case of a crash the only situations that can arise are that steps were only completed upto a certain point (so, 0 to 4 steps).  Ext4 did not guarantee this and could end up with steps 1 and 3 committed but not step 2 -- the end result is that to be absolutely safe, every program in existance has to be rewritten to sync every time your applications "switches" between updating meta-data and file contents.</p><p>Unfortunately, sync does FAR more than just tell the filesystem that step 3 is dependent on step 2 -- it tells it to drop everything, flush everything to disc right now, add a mark to the journal and wait until all that has completed -- not just your data, but all data that every application on your system might be working on -- it's a sledge hammer, one that should be used with care, and RARELY in user applications.</p><p>People don't seem to realize that modern filesystems (in ordered mode) already do hundreds of actions before actually committing them by default -- they can get away with that because they guarantee one simple thing: it all still LOOKS sequential, because they guarantee that a situation can never arise where a later action was committed but an earlier action was not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ext4 does need fixing .
It 's beyond stupidity to sync meta-data to disc more frequently than the real data that programs actually call upon a filesystem to store safely .
This rename problem is just the tip of the ice-berg when data and meta-data is not synced up to the same point in time.The problem simply is that actions taken by programs are no longer seemingly executed in order .
Actions have to be separated into actions that affect meta-data , and actions that affect file contents .
When you do the following actions : 1 ) create file2 ) write data to file3 ) rename/delete some other file4 ) write some more dataPrograms should not have to care about the fact that only actions 2 and 4 actually modify file contents .
They only need to know that in case of a crash the only situations that can arise are that steps were only completed upto a certain point ( so , 0 to 4 steps ) .
Ext4 did not guarantee this and could end up with steps 1 and 3 committed but not step 2 -- the end result is that to be absolutely safe , every program in existance has to be rewritten to sync every time your applications " switches " between updating meta-data and file contents.Unfortunately , sync does FAR more than just tell the filesystem that step 3 is dependent on step 2 -- it tells it to drop everything , flush everything to disc right now , add a mark to the journal and wait until all that has completed -- not just your data , but all data that every application on your system might be working on -- it 's a sledge hammer , one that should be used with care , and RARELY in user applications.People do n't seem to realize that modern filesystems ( in ordered mode ) already do hundreds of actions before actually committing them by default -- they can get away with that because they guarantee one simple thing : it all still LOOKS sequential , because they guarantee that a situation can never arise where a later action was committed but an earlier action was not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ext4 does need fixing.
It's beyond stupidity to sync meta-data to disc more frequently than the real data that programs actually call upon a filesystem to store safely.
This rename problem is just the tip of the ice-berg when data and meta-data is not synced up to the same point in time.The problem simply is that actions taken by programs are no longer seemingly executed in order.
Actions have to be separated into actions that affect meta-data, and actions that affect file contents.
When you do the following actions:1) create file2) write data to file3) rename/delete some other file4) write some more dataPrograms should not have to care about the fact that only actions 2 and 4 actually modify file contents.
They only need to know that in case of a crash the only situations that can arise are that steps were only completed upto a certain point (so, 0 to 4 steps).
Ext4 did not guarantee this and could end up with steps 1 and 3 committed but not step 2 -- the end result is that to be absolutely safe, every program in existance has to be rewritten to sync every time your applications "switches" between updating meta-data and file contents.Unfortunately, sync does FAR more than just tell the filesystem that step 3 is dependent on step 2 -- it tells it to drop everything, flush everything to disc right now, add a mark to the journal and wait until all that has completed -- not just your data, but all data that every application on your system might be working on -- it's a sledge hammer, one that should be used with care, and RARELY in user applications.People don't seem to realize that modern filesystems (in ordered mode) already do hundreds of actions before actually committing them by default -- they can get away with that because they guarantee one simple thing: it all still LOOKS sequential, because they guarantee that a situation can never arise where a later action was committed but an earlier action was not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153907</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>slaufer</author>
	<datestamp>1243688400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a side note, you don't need to buy even a $288 computer to test it; you can get a free one <a href="http://www.easyvmx.com/" title="easyvmx.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [easyvmx.com] and <a href="http://www.vmware.com/products/player/" title="vmware.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [vmware.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a side note , you do n't need to buy even a $ 288 computer to test it ; you can get a free one here [ easyvmx.com ] and here [ vmware.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a side note, you don't need to buy even a $288 computer to test it; you can get a free one here [easyvmx.com] and here [vmware.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</id>
	<title>Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is ext4 Stable For <b>Production</b> Systems?</p></div><p>Probably.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?</p></div><p>Ok so I'm gussing production = income = your ass?  Let me turn your question back to you by asking, "What is driving this need to move to ext4?"  Because so far, all you've told me is that you are considering risking your ass for sheer curiosity.  <br> <br>
I may be grossly misinformed but that is how the question sounds to me.  And by "your ass" I don't mean oh-no-we-had-a-service-outage-for-five-minutes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no, we could have a customer on the phone saying, "You mean to tell me that the modifications being made to my site for the past 24 hours are <i>gone</i>?!"  <br> <br>
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! <br> <br>

I don't know about you but I'm too busy dealing with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8\_Kfjo3VjU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">shit like this</a> [youtube.com] than to ponder new potential problems I can put into play.  <br> <br>

Look through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_file\_systems" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this page</a> [wikipedia.org] for a rough comparison of ext4 with other file systems.  There's a better list of features for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4#Features" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ext4 here</a> [wikipedia.org] that will tell you why you might need to switch to it.  It is backward compatible with ext3 and ext2 so moving to it may be trivial.  If you're dealing with more than 32000 subdirectories or need to partition some major petabytes/exobytes then you might not have a choice.  Some of these benefits are probably not risking your ass for but if there's a business need that cannot be overcome any easier way then back your shit up and do rigorous testing before you go live with it.  If you're using Slashdot to feel out if the majority of users scream OMGNOES so you don't waste your time doing that, then that's fine.  Just don't do this if you don't have to.  <br> <br>

I tell you what, there's a <a href="http://www.hot-deals.org/" title="hot-deals.org" rel="nofollow">$288 desktop computer at Dell today</a> [hot-deals.org] that you can buy, put ext4 on and your OS of choice and your application(s) and whipping boy it into next century without risking anything.  Where I work we have two servers in addition to our production servers.  I don't think this is an uncommon scheme so if you have a development server, throw it on there and poke it with a stick.  Then move it to the testing server and let your testers <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqq051BU2MY" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">grape it</a> [youtube.com] for two weeks.  Then you'll know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems ? Probably.Is there any incentive to move to ext4 , other than sheer curiosity ? Ok so I 'm gussing production = income = your ass ?
Let me turn your question back to you by asking , " What is driving this need to move to ext4 ?
" Because so far , all you 've told me is that you are considering risking your ass for sheer curiosity .
I may be grossly misinformed but that is how the question sounds to me .
And by " your ass " I do n't mean oh-no-we-had-a-service-outage-for-five-minutes ... no , we could have a customer on the phone saying , " You mean to tell me that the modifications being made to my site for the past 24 hours are gone ? !
" If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it !
I do n't know about you but I 'm too busy dealing with shit like this [ youtube.com ] than to ponder new potential problems I can put into play .
Look through this page [ wikipedia.org ] for a rough comparison of ext4 with other file systems .
There 's a better list of features for ext4 here [ wikipedia.org ] that will tell you why you might need to switch to it .
It is backward compatible with ext3 and ext2 so moving to it may be trivial .
If you 're dealing with more than 32000 subdirectories or need to partition some major petabytes/exobytes then you might not have a choice .
Some of these benefits are probably not risking your ass for but if there 's a business need that can not be overcome any easier way then back your shit up and do rigorous testing before you go live with it .
If you 're using Slashdot to feel out if the majority of users scream OMGNOES so you do n't waste your time doing that , then that 's fine .
Just do n't do this if you do n't have to .
I tell you what , there 's a $ 288 desktop computer at Dell today [ hot-deals.org ] that you can buy , put ext4 on and your OS of choice and your application ( s ) and whipping boy it into next century without risking anything .
Where I work we have two servers in addition to our production servers .
I do n't think this is an uncommon scheme so if you have a development server , throw it on there and poke it with a stick .
Then move it to the testing server and let your testers grape it [ youtube.com ] for two weeks .
Then you 'll know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems?Probably.Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?Ok so I'm gussing production = income = your ass?
Let me turn your question back to you by asking, "What is driving this need to move to ext4?
"  Because so far, all you've told me is that you are considering risking your ass for sheer curiosity.
I may be grossly misinformed but that is how the question sounds to me.
And by "your ass" I don't mean oh-no-we-had-a-service-outage-for-five-minutes ... no, we could have a customer on the phone saying, "You mean to tell me that the modifications being made to my site for the past 24 hours are gone?!
"   
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I don't know about you but I'm too busy dealing with shit like this [youtube.com] than to ponder new potential problems I can put into play.
Look through this page [wikipedia.org] for a rough comparison of ext4 with other file systems.
There's a better list of features for ext4 here [wikipedia.org] that will tell you why you might need to switch to it.
It is backward compatible with ext3 and ext2 so moving to it may be trivial.
If you're dealing with more than 32000 subdirectories or need to partition some major petabytes/exobytes then you might not have a choice.
Some of these benefits are probably not risking your ass for but if there's a business need that cannot be overcome any easier way then back your shit up and do rigorous testing before you go live with it.
If you're using Slashdot to feel out if the majority of users scream OMGNOES so you don't waste your time doing that, then that's fine.
Just don't do this if you don't have to.
I tell you what, there's a $288 desktop computer at Dell today [hot-deals.org] that you can buy, put ext4 on and your OS of choice and your application(s) and whipping boy it into next century without risking anything.
Where I work we have two servers in addition to our production servers.
I don't think this is an uncommon scheme so if you have a development server, throw it on there and poke it with a stick.
Then move it to the testing server and let your testers grape it [youtube.com] for two weeks.
Then you'll know.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152083</id>
	<title>HA HA HA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243676040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is a mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is a mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152187</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1243676880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And in my opinion as a professional systems programmer, this is an oversight in the Posix standard and not a desired behavior</i></p><p>Agreed - there really needs to be a POSIX way of forcing an atomic write but not forcing an fsync.  They aren't the same thing, and an atomic write doesn't carry nearly the same performance hit as an fsync.  The last thing I want is every app on my system making the write cache useless just to prevent wholesale data loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in my opinion as a professional systems programmer , this is an oversight in the Posix standard and not a desired behaviorAgreed - there really needs to be a POSIX way of forcing an atomic write but not forcing an fsync .
They are n't the same thing , and an atomic write does n't carry nearly the same performance hit as an fsync .
The last thing I want is every app on my system making the write cache useless just to prevent wholesale data loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in my opinion as a professional systems programmer, this is an oversight in the Posix standard and not a desired behaviorAgreed - there really needs to be a POSIX way of forcing an atomic write but not forcing an fsync.
They aren't the same thing, and an atomic write doesn't carry nearly the same performance hit as an fsync.
The last thing I want is every app on my system making the write cache useless just to prevent wholesale data loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150649</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1243709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A shorter approach to the question:<br> <br>What do I gain by running with ext4?<br>
Is that gain worth the time spent changing what I've got?<br> <br>If the answer to the first question is that ext4 is cool and shiny, and the answer to the second is unknown, the OP has his answer.<br> <br>Filesystems are one thing we need to be VERY conservative about. We need to be certain that it works reliably, because we do not need to find our work disappearing out the end of our backup cycle after having discovered problems too late. (Yes, I know, what is this "backup" of which I speak?)<br> <br>I still have drives running ReiserFS, and I still use ext2 for boot partitions mounted readonly. I pretty much trust those systems, but even so, I still take backups and test them when I can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A shorter approach to the question : What do I gain by running with ext4 ?
Is that gain worth the time spent changing what I 've got ?
If the answer to the first question is that ext4 is cool and shiny , and the answer to the second is unknown , the OP has his answer .
Filesystems are one thing we need to be VERY conservative about .
We need to be certain that it works reliably , because we do not need to find our work disappearing out the end of our backup cycle after having discovered problems too late .
( Yes , I know , what is this " backup " of which I speak ?
) I still have drives running ReiserFS , and I still use ext2 for boot partitions mounted readonly .
I pretty much trust those systems , but even so , I still take backups and test them when I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shorter approach to the question: What do I gain by running with ext4?
Is that gain worth the time spent changing what I've got?
If the answer to the first question is that ext4 is cool and shiny, and the answer to the second is unknown, the OP has his answer.
Filesystems are one thing we need to be VERY conservative about.
We need to be certain that it works reliably, because we do not need to find our work disappearing out the end of our backup cycle after having discovered problems too late.
(Yes, I know, what is this "backup" of which I speak?
) I still have drives running ReiserFS, and I still use ext2 for boot partitions mounted readonly.
I pretty much trust those systems, but even so, I still take backups and test them when I can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155923</id>
	<title>Use a real, reliable filesystem</title>
	<author>-Neko-</author>
	<datestamp>1243709280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget it. ext4 is still not stable even though they took the "dev" tag off. The filesystem is going to have problems upon problems upon problems for months and months and months and you're going to be looking at updating and patching kernels in perpetuity to keep up with those patches. The only thing they stabilized was featureset and on-disk format.</p><p>If you want the features of ext4 for production, you should already be running XFS. You can't get much better on Linux filesystems these days. By the time ext4 gets to be "production worthy" (by this I mean has spent a year in the tree and become the default on major Linux distributions meaning thousands of people have installed on it, found all the showstopper bugs and had it patched in distro downstreams at least), you can bet Btrfs will be out and "stable" anyway, and you'll be asking about whether THAT is ready for production.</p><p>Use XFS now. Wait 18 months for Btrfs, if it is indeed any better. If not, and still looking for a filesystem challenge today, work out a way you can use ZFS - which has its problems on Linux (especially that it needs to run through FUSE - not a performance issue so much as a technical nightmare to use it as your root filesystem that no distro actually would support because of moronic non-free policies).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget it .
ext4 is still not stable even though they took the " dev " tag off .
The filesystem is going to have problems upon problems upon problems for months and months and months and you 're going to be looking at updating and patching kernels in perpetuity to keep up with those patches .
The only thing they stabilized was featureset and on-disk format.If you want the features of ext4 for production , you should already be running XFS .
You ca n't get much better on Linux filesystems these days .
By the time ext4 gets to be " production worthy " ( by this I mean has spent a year in the tree and become the default on major Linux distributions meaning thousands of people have installed on it , found all the showstopper bugs and had it patched in distro downstreams at least ) , you can bet Btrfs will be out and " stable " anyway , and you 'll be asking about whether THAT is ready for production.Use XFS now .
Wait 18 months for Btrfs , if it is indeed any better .
If not , and still looking for a filesystem challenge today , work out a way you can use ZFS - which has its problems on Linux ( especially that it needs to run through FUSE - not a performance issue so much as a technical nightmare to use it as your root filesystem that no distro actually would support because of moronic non-free policies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget it.
ext4 is still not stable even though they took the "dev" tag off.
The filesystem is going to have problems upon problems upon problems for months and months and months and you're going to be looking at updating and patching kernels in perpetuity to keep up with those patches.
The only thing they stabilized was featureset and on-disk format.If you want the features of ext4 for production, you should already be running XFS.
You can't get much better on Linux filesystems these days.
By the time ext4 gets to be "production worthy" (by this I mean has spent a year in the tree and become the default on major Linux distributions meaning thousands of people have installed on it, found all the showstopper bugs and had it patched in distro downstreams at least), you can bet Btrfs will be out and "stable" anyway, and you'll be asking about whether THAT is ready for production.Use XFS now.
Wait 18 months for Btrfs, if it is indeed any better.
If not, and still looking for a filesystem challenge today, work out a way you can use ZFS - which has its problems on Linux (especially that it needs to run through FUSE - not a performance issue so much as a technical nightmare to use it as your root filesystem that no distro actually would support because of moronic non-free policies).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150685</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By your logic, web standards should be changed to match the behavior of Microsoft IE. Since IE is the most popular browser, it should not be forced to conform to the incompatible ("faulty") web standards.</p><p>This is exactly why we need precise interface specifications, along with powerful tools for checking against those specs. Otherwise, application developers will find some idiom that appears to work without regard to whether they are assuming more than the spec guarantees. As a result, their code is broken. The current OS code might not expose the error, but a future one will. The OS code should not have to include hacks for every possible interface error that could be present in application code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , web standards should be changed to match the behavior of Microsoft IE .
Since IE is the most popular browser , it should not be forced to conform to the incompatible ( " faulty " ) web standards.This is exactly why we need precise interface specifications , along with powerful tools for checking against those specs .
Otherwise , application developers will find some idiom that appears to work without regard to whether they are assuming more than the spec guarantees .
As a result , their code is broken .
The current OS code might not expose the error , but a future one will .
The OS code should not have to include hacks for every possible interface error that could be present in application code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your logic, web standards should be changed to match the behavior of Microsoft IE.
Since IE is the most popular browser, it should not be forced to conform to the incompatible ("faulty") web standards.This is exactly why we need precise interface specifications, along with powerful tools for checking against those specs.
Otherwise, application developers will find some idiom that appears to work without regard to whether they are assuming more than the spec guarantees.
As a result, their code is broken.
The current OS code might not expose the error, but a future one will.
The OS code should not have to include hacks for every possible interface error that could be present in application code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150661</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I may be grossly misinformed but that is how the question sounds to me.</p><p>You are. The question is clearly asking about normal users, which is NOT uber-leet production $$$$ systems.</p><p>&gt; My questions to the early adopters of ext4 are about whether the patches have performed as expected. What is your overall feeling about ext4? Do you think is solid enough for most users to trust it with their data? Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3? Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?</p><p>I see no problem with migrating a desktop to a different FS out of sheer curiosity, as long as one backs up one's personal data beforehand.</p><p>Don't let the title fool you, the body of the text makes no reference to 'production systems' and it is likely something inserted by the editors.</p><p>But yeah, whoo smartass. All it takes is a smartass attitude to get +5 Insightful these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I may be grossly misinformed but that is how the question sounds to me.You are .
The question is clearly asking about normal users , which is NOT uber-leet production $ $ $ $ systems. &gt; My questions to the early adopters of ext4 are about whether the patches have performed as expected .
What is your overall feeling about ext4 ?
Do you think is solid enough for most users to trust it with their data ?
Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3 ?
Is there any incentive to move to ext4 , other than sheer curiosity ? I see no problem with migrating a desktop to a different FS out of sheer curiosity , as long as one backs up one 's personal data beforehand.Do n't let the title fool you , the body of the text makes no reference to 'production systems ' and it is likely something inserted by the editors.But yeah , whoo smartass .
All it takes is a smartass attitude to get + 5 Insightful these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I may be grossly misinformed but that is how the question sounds to me.You are.
The question is clearly asking about normal users, which is NOT uber-leet production $$$$ systems.&gt; My questions to the early adopters of ext4 are about whether the patches have performed as expected.
What is your overall feeling about ext4?
Do you think is solid enough for most users to trust it with their data?
Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3?
Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?I see no problem with migrating a desktop to a different FS out of sheer curiosity, as long as one backs up one's personal data beforehand.Don't let the title fool you, the body of the text makes no reference to 'production systems' and it is likely something inserted by the editors.But yeah, whoo smartass.
All it takes is a smartass attitude to get +5 Insightful these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150215</id>
	<title>Speed improvements?</title>
	<author>wild\_berry</author>
	<datestamp>1243705620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3?</p></div> </blockquote><p>The extents mean that a large contiguous read is faster and files are more likely to be written in contiguous chunks, giving a bit of a boost to the filesystem.  That's the explanation I have for my system and its 5400-rpm laptop disks seeming quicker (note that the appearance of greater performance isn't greater performance).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3 ?
The extents mean that a large contiguous read is faster and files are more likely to be written in contiguous chunks , giving a bit of a boost to the filesystem .
That 's the explanation I have for my system and its 5400-rpm laptop disks seeming quicker ( note that the appearance of greater performance is n't greater performance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you find any significant performance improvements compared to ext3?
The extents mean that a large contiguous read is faster and files are more likely to be written in contiguous chunks, giving a bit of a boost to the filesystem.
That's the explanation I have for my system and its 5400-rpm laptop disks seeming quicker (note that the appearance of greater performance isn't greater performance).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150691</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1243709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It still needs more time.  I have played under both ubuntu and rhel 5.3 and run into strange behavior that makes me uncomfortable.</p><p>1) Bonnie++ throws errors even on server class hardware that something is wrong when creating and deleting a large number of random files.  This is with no errors in the filesystem and everything operating normally.  <a href="https://www.redhat.com/archives/ext4-beta-list/2009-February/msg00000.html" title="redhat.com">https://www.redhat.com/archives/ext4-beta-list/2009-February/msg00000.html</a> [redhat.com]</p><p>2) A crash of ubuntu ended up removing *ALL* group and other permission on a laptop drive.  Not just those altered within 2 minutes of the crash, but of every single file in the system leading to a system that non-root users could not log into.</p><p>Neither of those are acceptable.  For now it's still ext3 only until ext4 has had some more time to mature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still needs more time .
I have played under both ubuntu and rhel 5.3 and run into strange behavior that makes me uncomfortable.1 ) Bonnie + + throws errors even on server class hardware that something is wrong when creating and deleting a large number of random files .
This is with no errors in the filesystem and everything operating normally .
https : //www.redhat.com/archives/ext4-beta-list/2009-February/msg00000.html [ redhat.com ] 2 ) A crash of ubuntu ended up removing * ALL * group and other permission on a laptop drive .
Not just those altered within 2 minutes of the crash , but of every single file in the system leading to a system that non-root users could not log into.Neither of those are acceptable .
For now it 's still ext3 only until ext4 has had some more time to mature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still needs more time.
I have played under both ubuntu and rhel 5.3 and run into strange behavior that makes me uncomfortable.1) Bonnie++ throws errors even on server class hardware that something is wrong when creating and deleting a large number of random files.
This is with no errors in the filesystem and everything operating normally.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/ext4-beta-list/2009-February/msg00000.html [redhat.com]2) A crash of ubuntu ended up removing *ALL* group and other permission on a laptop drive.
Not just those altered within 2 minutes of the crash, but of every single file in the system leading to a system that non-root users could not log into.Neither of those are acceptable.
For now it's still ext3 only until ext4 has had some more time to mature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155219</id>
	<title>ext4 at my house</title>
	<author>FatherDale</author>
	<datestamp>1243701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i've been using it since, what, 2 days after Ubuntu 9.04 came out, on a 250gb HP convertible and a 20gb SSD eee 901. No issues. I'm impressed by the speed. It does work, and I'm very ok with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've been using it since , what , 2 days after Ubuntu 9.04 came out , on a 250gb HP convertible and a 20gb SSD eee 901 .
No issues .
I 'm impressed by the speed .
It does work , and I 'm very ok with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've been using it since, what, 2 days after Ubuntu 9.04 came out, on a 250gb HP convertible and a 20gb SSD eee 901.
No issues.
I'm impressed by the speed.
It does work, and I'm very ok with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153647</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>fmayhar</author>
	<datestamp>1243686420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The apps don't need fixing, neither does ext4.  It's not an either-or.  There's a third element in this little problem.</p><p>Might I suggest that it's the buffer handling in Linux that's messed up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The apps do n't need fixing , neither does ext4 .
It 's not an either-or .
There 's a third element in this little problem.Might I suggest that it 's the buffer handling in Linux that 's messed up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The apps don't need fixing, neither does ext4.
It's not an either-or.
There's a third element in this little problem.Might I suggest that it's the buffer handling in Linux that's messed up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155651</id>
	<title>Re:Ye</title>
	<author>H.G.Blob</author>
	<datestamp>1243705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did it like that too until the last fsck took more than 15 minutes, then I switched<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home too. No problems at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did it like that too until the last fsck took more than 15 minutes , then I switched /home too .
No problems at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did it like that too until the last fsck took more than 15 minutes, then I switched /home too.
No problems at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151753</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1243674180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The greatest danger to Linux's success is not Microsoft. It's the hubris of many Linux developers, users, and advocates, who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user's problems. (And yes, I'm a follower of the Raymond Chen philosophy)</p></div><p>Wonderful post. And I totally agree. Whenever I criticize features of linux, I get modded flamebait or troll, indicating that nobody on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. gives a crap unless it causes them problems like real data loss.</p><p>Even then, if the data loss is only for me, then I must be a troll.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greatest danger to Linux 's success is not Microsoft .
It 's the hubris of many Linux developers , users , and advocates , who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user 's problems .
( And yes , I 'm a follower of the Raymond Chen philosophy ) Wonderful post .
And I totally agree .
Whenever I criticize features of linux , I get modded flamebait or troll , indicating that nobody on / .
gives a crap unless it causes them problems like real data loss.Even then , if the data loss is only for me , then I must be a troll .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greatest danger to Linux's success is not Microsoft.
It's the hubris of many Linux developers, users, and advocates, who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user's problems.
(And yes, I'm a follower of the Raymond Chen philosophy)Wonderful post.
And I totally agree.
Whenever I criticize features of linux, I get modded flamebait or troll, indicating that nobody on /.
gives a crap unless it causes them problems like real data loss.Even then, if the data loss is only for me, then I must be a troll.
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150193</id>
	<title>I think it's "safe enough"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I moved to ext4 as soon as it became available.  I haven't had any problems thusfar (no data loss, etc), and the increased speed is noticable.

So - in the opinion of a very casual Linux user - I would say that yes, it's "okay."  I'm not sure I'd trust it with anything super serious, though.  I could be the only one without any problems, after all.  As always, you should tip-toe around anything bleeding-edge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I moved to ext4 as soon as it became available .
I have n't had any problems thusfar ( no data loss , etc ) , and the increased speed is noticable .
So - in the opinion of a very casual Linux user - I would say that yes , it 's " okay .
" I 'm not sure I 'd trust it with anything super serious , though .
I could be the only one without any problems , after all .
As always , you should tip-toe around anything bleeding-edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I moved to ext4 as soon as it became available.
I haven't had any problems thusfar (no data loss, etc), and the increased speed is noticable.
So - in the opinion of a very casual Linux user - I would say that yes, it's "okay.
"  I'm not sure I'd trust it with anything super serious, though.
I could be the only one without any problems, after all.
As always, you should tip-toe around anything bleeding-edge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150457</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wha....?  Are you seriously suggesting that applications/utilities need to be patched to deal with faulty (yes, faulty) filesystem semantics? For \_every\_ single filesystem they might encounter? The whole point behind a filesystem layer is to present a unified view of files to the user layer regardless of physical media or driver quirks.</p><p>The point is really that ext4 is/was broken, and IMO, any filesystem requiring patches to applications in order not to lose data is no filesystem at all. It's unbelievable (despite the technical benefits of ext4) that this would even be up for consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wha.... ?
Are you seriously suggesting that applications/utilities need to be patched to deal with faulty ( yes , faulty ) filesystem semantics ?
For \ _every \ _ single filesystem they might encounter ?
The whole point behind a filesystem layer is to present a unified view of files to the user layer regardless of physical media or driver quirks.The point is really that ext4 is/was broken , and IMO , any filesystem requiring patches to applications in order not to lose data is no filesystem at all .
It 's unbelievable ( despite the technical benefits of ext4 ) that this would even be up for consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wha....?
Are you seriously suggesting that applications/utilities need to be patched to deal with faulty (yes, faulty) filesystem semantics?
For \_every\_ single filesystem they might encounter?
The whole point behind a filesystem layer is to present a unified view of files to the user layer regardless of physical media or driver quirks.The point is really that ext4 is/was broken, and IMO, any filesystem requiring patches to applications in order not to lose data is no filesystem at all.
It's unbelievable (despite the technical benefits of ext4) that this would even be up for consideration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151865</id>
	<title>re ext4</title>
	<author>freddieb</author>
	<datestamp>1243674840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried it briefly. I had no problems with it. However, I did not see the extreme performance promised and the rumours of data loss
were surfacing so I switched back to ext3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it briefly .
I had no problems with it .
However , I did not see the extreme performance promised and the rumours of data loss were surfacing so I switched back to ext3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it briefly.
I had no problems with it.
However, I did not see the extreme performance promised and the rumours of data loss
were surfacing so I switched back to ext3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159273</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1243793580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What the fuck CAN kde4 do?</p></div></blockquote><p>
cp settings settings-old<br>
fflush<br>
cp settings-new settings<br>
fflush<br>
read settings back in and check for correctness; fix as required. Do NOT remove surplus files.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck CAN kde4 do ?
cp settings settings-old fflush cp settings-new settings fflush read settings back in and check for correctness ; fix as required .
Do NOT remove surplus files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck CAN kde4 do?
cp settings settings-old
fflush
cp settings-new settings
fflush
read settings back in and check for correctness; fix as required.
Do NOT remove surplus files.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28183475</id>
	<title>Mysql database corruption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243961700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On CentOS 5.3, we get data corruption with multiple versions of MySQL, but only if we use ext4.  ext3 works fine, but it's the same old crappy performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On CentOS 5.3 , we get data corruption with multiple versions of MySQL , but only if we use ext4 .
ext3 works fine , but it 's the same old crappy performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On CentOS 5.3, we get data corruption with multiple versions of MySQL, but only if we use ext4.
ext3 works fine, but it's the same old crappy performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150779</id>
	<title>Data loss</title>
	<author>WillKemp</author>
	<datestamp>1243710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of months ago i installed Ubuntu 9.01, which used ext4 by default. Running it, i experienced data loss for the first time since i moved from ext2 to ext3 quite a few years ago now. I've just changed back to ext3 - which has been rock solid for me since it first appeared in Redhat or whatever distro it was i was using back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of months ago i installed Ubuntu 9.01 , which used ext4 by default .
Running it , i experienced data loss for the first time since i moved from ext2 to ext3 quite a few years ago now .
I 've just changed back to ext3 - which has been rock solid for me since it first appeared in Redhat or whatever distro it was i was using back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of months ago i installed Ubuntu 9.01, which used ext4 by default.
Running it, i experienced data loss for the first time since i moved from ext2 to ext3 quite a few years ago now.
I've just changed back to ext3 - which has been rock solid for me since it first appeared in Redhat or whatever distro it was i was using back then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153549</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1243685700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?</p></div><p>I'm not sure how you read otherwise, but it sounds to me like that question is explicitly stating that curiosity isn't a good enough reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any incentive to move to ext4 , other than sheer curiosity ? I 'm not sure how you read otherwise , but it sounds to me like that question is explicitly stating that curiosity is n't a good enough reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any incentive to move to ext4, other than sheer curiosity?I'm not sure how you read otherwise, but it sounds to me like that question is explicitly stating that curiosity isn't a good enough reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150869</id>
	<title>Yes...I have experienced problems with ext4</title>
	<author>Kamphor</author>
	<datestamp>1243711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I nearly lost my whole filesystem.  It's a good thing I had a backup core system on reiserfs to boot from and run fsck.

from what I understand, it's a problem with the ext4 journaling system and metadata.

this link has info on the journal problem...which may have already been patched in the current kernels.
<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/284037/" title="lwn.net" rel="nofollow">http://lwn.net/Articles/284037/</a> [lwn.net]

wiki page for ext4 - bottom has a fix for the problem:
<a href="http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4" title="archlinux.org" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4</a> [archlinux.org]

essentially, mounting and ext4 filesystem with option "data=ordered" helped my system out.  since I have enabled this mount option, my filesystem is now stable even after hard reboots or power failures.

Hope this helps out people as it did me!
-Kamphor</htmltext>
<tokenext>I nearly lost my whole filesystem .
It 's a good thing I had a backup core system on reiserfs to boot from and run fsck .
from what I understand , it 's a problem with the ext4 journaling system and metadata .
this link has info on the journal problem...which may have already been patched in the current kernels .
http : //lwn.net/Articles/284037/ [ lwn.net ] wiki page for ext4 - bottom has a fix for the problem : http : //wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4 [ archlinux.org ] essentially , mounting and ext4 filesystem with option " data = ordered " helped my system out .
since I have enabled this mount option , my filesystem is now stable even after hard reboots or power failures .
Hope this helps out people as it did me !
-Kamphor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I nearly lost my whole filesystem.
It's a good thing I had a backup core system on reiserfs to boot from and run fsck.
from what I understand, it's a problem with the ext4 journaling system and metadata.
this link has info on the journal problem...which may have already been patched in the current kernels.
http://lwn.net/Articles/284037/ [lwn.net]

wiki page for ext4 - bottom has a fix for the problem:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4 [archlinux.org]

essentially, mounting and ext4 filesystem with option "data=ordered" helped my system out.
since I have enabled this mount option, my filesystem is now stable even after hard reboots or power failures.
Hope this helps out people as it did me!
-Kamphor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291</id>
	<title>ext4 is buggy</title>
	<author>hamanu</author>
	<datestamp>1243706280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the fsck times are really fast compared to ext3, and thank god, because EVERY time I reboot it requires an fsck, complaining about group descriptor checksums. Even if I unmount my ext4 filesystem and remount it without rebooting it gets all fscked up. I have a 3TB ext4 fs on LVM on RAID, that was NOT converted from ext3, but built on brand new drives. My similar ext3 filesystem has had so such problems.</p><p>ext4 takes about 7 minutes to fsck, ext3 took hours. I hope they fix this soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the fsck times are really fast compared to ext3 , and thank god , because EVERY time I reboot it requires an fsck , complaining about group descriptor checksums .
Even if I unmount my ext4 filesystem and remount it without rebooting it gets all fscked up .
I have a 3TB ext4 fs on LVM on RAID , that was NOT converted from ext3 , but built on brand new drives .
My similar ext3 filesystem has had so such problems.ext4 takes about 7 minutes to fsck , ext3 took hours .
I hope they fix this soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the fsck times are really fast compared to ext3, and thank god, because EVERY time I reboot it requires an fsck, complaining about group descriptor checksums.
Even if I unmount my ext4 filesystem and remount it without rebooting it gets all fscked up.
I have a 3TB ext4 fs on LVM on RAID, that was NOT converted from ext3, but built on brand new drives.
My similar ext3 filesystem has had so such problems.ext4 takes about 7 minutes to fsck, ext3 took hours.
I hope they fix this soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157431</id>
	<title>Re:Its good for general use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243776420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fast boot + netbook = Moblin. 5-7 seconds from grub to working desktop, disk and cpu idle. Alternately you can patch your Fedora kernel to use sreadahead and muck around with the init scripts, but Moblin is much easier to work with.</p><p>The beta adds a new, interesting UI. It's probably better than Ubuntu's Netbook Remix, but it may or may not be a selling point to a slashdotter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fast boot + netbook = Moblin .
5-7 seconds from grub to working desktop , disk and cpu idle .
Alternately you can patch your Fedora kernel to use sreadahead and muck around with the init scripts , but Moblin is much easier to work with.The beta adds a new , interesting UI .
It 's probably better than Ubuntu 's Netbook Remix , but it may or may not be a selling point to a slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fast boot + netbook = Moblin.
5-7 seconds from grub to working desktop, disk and cpu idle.
Alternately you can patch your Fedora kernel to use sreadahead and muck around with the init scripts, but Moblin is much easier to work with.The beta adds a new, interesting UI.
It's probably better than Ubuntu's Netbook Remix, but it may or may not be a selling point to a slashdotter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151959</id>
	<title>Re:Connection Interrupted errors loading slashdot?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243675440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blame your your firewall, your proxy, your router, or your ISP, in about that order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame your your firewall , your proxy , your router , or your ISP , in about that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame your your firewall, your proxy, your router, or your ISP, in about that order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159949</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243798500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insightful Post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..very good points made indeed</p><p>My personal experiences w/ ext4<br>Currently using/testing Kubuntu 9.04 with KDE 4.2.3 &amp; ext4<br>All my systems are considered as production as I am a corporate business owner contractor and use this for accounting, administration, bidding, communication, development, etc.<br>Kubuntu is not as stable as Lenny w/ KDE 3.5.10, but is stable enough for my needs. KDE 4.2.3 does provide some very nice features and the eye candy kicks ass. I also develop my own business software using QT4, which is why I opted for this configuration</p><p>EXT4 seems snappier than ext3 and I like some new features it offers although I may not be utilizing many to their fullest extent. I have also experienced files vanishing when being saved but had backups so the setback was not detrimental with exception of lost modifications.</p><p>Overall I prefer this setup over all other OS options available. It is always a pure joy to use, fast and efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful Post ..very good points made indeedMy personal experiences w/ ext4Currently using/testing Kubuntu 9.04 with KDE 4.2.3 &amp; ext4All my systems are considered as production as I am a corporate business owner contractor and use this for accounting , administration , bidding , communication , development , etc.Kubuntu is not as stable as Lenny w/ KDE 3.5.10 , but is stable enough for my needs .
KDE 4.2.3 does provide some very nice features and the eye candy kicks ass .
I also develop my own business software using QT4 , which is why I opted for this configurationEXT4 seems snappier than ext3 and I like some new features it offers although I may not be utilizing many to their fullest extent .
I have also experienced files vanishing when being saved but had backups so the setback was not detrimental with exception of lost modifications.Overall I prefer this setup over all other OS options available .
It is always a pure joy to use , fast and efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful Post ..very good points made indeedMy personal experiences w/ ext4Currently using/testing Kubuntu 9.04 with KDE 4.2.3 &amp; ext4All my systems are considered as production as I am a corporate business owner contractor and use this for accounting, administration, bidding, communication, development, etc.Kubuntu is not as stable as Lenny w/ KDE 3.5.10, but is stable enough for my needs.
KDE 4.2.3 does provide some very nice features and the eye candy kicks ass.
I also develop my own business software using QT4, which is why I opted for this configurationEXT4 seems snappier than ext3 and I like some new features it offers although I may not be utilizing many to their fullest extent.
I have also experienced files vanishing when being saved but had backups so the setback was not detrimental with exception of lost modifications.Overall I prefer this setup over all other OS options available.
It is always a pure joy to use, fast and efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153329</id>
	<title>Wow !</title>
	<author>tbi</author>
	<datestamp>1243684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does seem to be working well, even though it crashed it still managed to recognise that you were half way through doing something and posted the reply for you !

I'm presuming it does this for other data, that, for example, you're trying to save when you have a sudden power outage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does seem to be working well , even though it crashed it still managed to recognise that you were half way through doing something and posted the reply for you !
I 'm presuming it does this for other data , that , for example , you 're trying to save when you have a sudden power outage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does seem to be working well, even though it crashed it still managed to recognise that you were half way through doing something and posted the reply for you !
I'm presuming it does this for other data, that, for example, you're trying to save when you have a sudden power outage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150563</id>
	<title>Re:ext4 is buggy</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1243708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why were you on ext3 if you needed constant fcsking there have always been better options resierfs, JFS, etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why were you on ext3 if you needed constant fcsking there have always been better options resierfs , JFS , etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why were you on ext3 if you needed constant fcsking there have always been better options resierfs, JFS, etc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150281</id>
	<title>Maybe....</title>
	<author>jonnycando</author>
	<datestamp>1243706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a moot point for me....I have been using xfs for several years, and so haven't tried, nor do I think I need the latest iteration of ext. But like was opined already, it's not ext4 but the apps that need fixing. So it seems at least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a moot point for me....I have been using xfs for several years , and so have n't tried , nor do I think I need the latest iteration of ext .
But like was opined already , it 's not ext4 but the apps that need fixing .
So it seems at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a moot point for me....I have been using xfs for several years, and so haven't tried, nor do I think I need the latest iteration of ext.
But like was opined already, it's not ext4 but the apps that need fixing.
So it seems at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28165355</id>
	<title>Ext4 work well</title>
	<author>guliverk</author>
	<datestamp>1243849200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Ext4 on my new notebook without any problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Ext4 on my new notebook without any problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Ext4 on my new notebook without any problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165</id>
	<title>Ye</title>
	<author>identity0</author>
	<datestamp>1243705260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been running ext4 on my system and everything's fi</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been running ext4 on my system and everything 's fi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been running ext4 on my system and everything's fi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150343</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the famous filesystem corruption due delayed allocation I lost confidence in ext4. I've been using xfs on some partitions and it works great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the famous filesystem corruption due delayed allocation I lost confidence in ext4 .
I 've been using xfs on some partitions and it works great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the famous filesystem corruption due delayed allocation I lost confidence in ext4.
I've been using xfs on some partitions and it works great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157015</id>
	<title>Re:Ye</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1243769640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes... cause only KDE apps did this... *groan*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... cause only KDE apps did this... * groan *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes... cause only KDE apps did this... *groan*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151919</id>
	<title>ext4 also has space allocation issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243675080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried ext4 as soon as it hit 2.28.  I never ran into the KDE bugs, but I did notice it complaining that the filesystem was full despite many GB being free (and we're not talking about the relatively small amount reserved for root here).</p><p>It certainly wasn't fit to be renamed from ext4dev at that stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried ext4 as soon as it hit 2.28 .
I never ran into the KDE bugs , but I did notice it complaining that the filesystem was full despite many GB being free ( and we 're not talking about the relatively small amount reserved for root here ) .It certainly was n't fit to be renamed from ext4dev at that stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried ext4 as soon as it hit 2.28.
I never ran into the KDE bugs, but I did notice it complaining that the filesystem was full despite many GB being free (and we're not talking about the relatively small amount reserved for root here).It certainly wasn't fit to be renamed from ext4dev at that stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28160519</id>
	<title>ReiserFS FTW!</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1243802820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still use ReiserFS.  It's killer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still use ReiserFS .
It 's killer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still use ReiserFS.
It's killer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150655</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1243709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We avoid anything that has less than 24 months of wide deployment unless there is some absolute pressing need to</p> </div><p>Good Idea.  Let's <b>all</b> follow this sage advice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We avoid anything that has less than 24 months of wide deployment unless there is some absolute pressing need to Good Idea .
Let 's all follow this sage advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We avoid anything that has less than 24 months of wide deployment unless there is some absolute pressing need to Good Idea.
Let's all follow this sage advice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152567</id>
	<title>homogeneous environments first, please</title>
	<author>Chris Snook</author>
	<datestamp>1243679040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As always, when considering a new technology, the best place to deploy it is in large, single-purpose setups that actually benefit from the differences relative to the thing you're replacing.  You'd have to be completely nuts to migrate an existing data center full of disparate workloads to ext4, but if you're about to deploy a bunch of functionally identical streaming media servers where the improvements in handling large volumes and files will make a measurable difference, and the cost of validating the setup is amortized across several production systems, you'd really be nuts not to at least consider it.  If there's an app that does something stupid, you have one bug report to file instead of 50, and you need to change one install configuration file to fix it.</p><p>Don't be first, but definitely don't be last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As always , when considering a new technology , the best place to deploy it is in large , single-purpose setups that actually benefit from the differences relative to the thing you 're replacing .
You 'd have to be completely nuts to migrate an existing data center full of disparate workloads to ext4 , but if you 're about to deploy a bunch of functionally identical streaming media servers where the improvements in handling large volumes and files will make a measurable difference , and the cost of validating the setup is amortized across several production systems , you 'd really be nuts not to at least consider it .
If there 's an app that does something stupid , you have one bug report to file instead of 50 , and you need to change one install configuration file to fix it.Do n't be first , but definitely do n't be last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always, when considering a new technology, the best place to deploy it is in large, single-purpose setups that actually benefit from the differences relative to the thing you're replacing.
You'd have to be completely nuts to migrate an existing data center full of disparate workloads to ext4, but if you're about to deploy a bunch of functionally identical streaming media servers where the improvements in handling large volumes and files will make a measurable difference, and the cost of validating the setup is amortized across several production systems, you'd really be nuts not to at least consider it.
If there's an app that does something stupid, you have one bug report to file instead of 50, and you need to change one install configuration file to fix it.Don't be first, but definitely don't be last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150699</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's "safe enough"</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1243709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I haven't had any problems thusfar (no data loss, etc)</i> <br> <br>How do you know? Do you do md5sums on every file? Most admins I've come across don't seem to, and it could be months or years before you find out, in which case any loss might easily end up outside your backup cycle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't had any problems thusfar ( no data loss , etc ) How do you know ?
Do you do md5sums on every file ?
Most admins I 've come across do n't seem to , and it could be months or years before you find out , in which case any loss might easily end up outside your backup cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't had any problems thusfar (no data loss, etc)  How do you know?
Do you do md5sums on every file?
Most admins I've come across don't seem to, and it could be months or years before you find out, in which case any loss might easily end up outside your backup cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150777</id>
	<title>Production?</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1243710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A laptop? No, that doesn't count unless you run your production system on another laptop of the same build and make. At least where I work production is business critical systems on real kit, then we have our development environment, testing environment, and after that (in terms of importance) we have the business/office network and individual workstations (and your laptop would be somewhere after that).<br> <br>
Nothing a developer did on a home system would be considered production ready without, you know, doing lots of actual testing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A laptop ?
No , that does n't count unless you run your production system on another laptop of the same build and make .
At least where I work production is business critical systems on real kit , then we have our development environment , testing environment , and after that ( in terms of importance ) we have the business/office network and individual workstations ( and your laptop would be somewhere after that ) .
Nothing a developer did on a home system would be considered production ready without , you know , doing lots of actual testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A laptop?
No, that doesn't count unless you run your production system on another laptop of the same build and make.
At least where I work production is business critical systems on real kit, then we have our development environment, testing environment, and after that (in terms of importance) we have the business/office network and individual workstations (and your laptop would be somewhere after that).
Nothing a developer did on a home system would be considered production ready without, you know, doing lots of actual testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28154979</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some corrections, although the sentiment is correct:</p><p>
&nbsp; <i>copy of A to A', ftruncate(A'), write(A'), rename(A' to A), host crash, causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A'</i></p><p>This is not what is wrong. If the file contained the old version of A it would be fine, this is the expected behavior. The problem is that the file contains some partially-written version of A' (usually a zero-length version).</p><p>
&nbsp; <i>Posix doesn't actually say that rename is a write barrier for data and metadata</i></p><p>Actually POSIX does say exactly that. The hole EXT4 weasels through is that POSIX says "anything can happen when the machine crashes".</p><p>
&nbsp; <i>apps didn't make use of fdatasync() / fsync() correctly</i></p><p>The apps *were* using these calls correctly, by <i>not</i> calling them. They are very slow and make guarantees that have nothing to do with the desired action, which is an atomic rename.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some corrections , although the sentiment is correct :   copy of A to A ' , ftruncate ( A ' ) , write ( A ' ) , rename ( A ' to A ) , host crash , causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A'This is not what is wrong .
If the file contained the old version of A it would be fine , this is the expected behavior .
The problem is that the file contains some partially-written version of A ' ( usually a zero-length version ) .
  Posix does n't actually say that rename is a write barrier for data and metadataActually POSIX does say exactly that .
The hole EXT4 weasels through is that POSIX says " anything can happen when the machine crashes " .
  apps did n't make use of fdatasync ( ) / fsync ( ) correctlyThe apps * were * using these calls correctly , by not calling them .
They are very slow and make guarantees that have nothing to do with the desired action , which is an atomic rename .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some corrections, although the sentiment is correct:
  copy of A to A', ftruncate(A'), write(A'), rename(A' to A), host crash, causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A'This is not what is wrong.
If the file contained the old version of A it would be fine, this is the expected behavior.
The problem is that the file contains some partially-written version of A' (usually a zero-length version).
  Posix doesn't actually say that rename is a write barrier for data and metadataActually POSIX does say exactly that.
The hole EXT4 weasels through is that POSIX says "anything can happen when the machine crashes".
  apps didn't make use of fdatasync() / fsync() correctlyThe apps *were* using these calls correctly, by not calling them.
They are very slow and make guarantees that have nothing to do with the desired action, which is an atomic rename.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151853</id>
	<title>Re:ext4 is buggy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243674780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is exactly why I don't use ext for large filesystems.</p><p>XFS is <i>the</i> most stable and feature-filled filesystem out there right now, and it has been for the last 6+ years or so.  So for me it's XFS on everything except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot partitions.  No fschk's with XFS either.  I have tens of terabytes on XFS and have never lost one piece of data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is exactly why I do n't use ext for large filesystems.XFS is the most stable and feature-filled filesystem out there right now , and it has been for the last 6 + years or so .
So for me it 's XFS on everything except /boot partitions .
No fschk 's with XFS either .
I have tens of terabytes on XFS and have never lost one piece of data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is exactly why I don't use ext for large filesystems.XFS is the most stable and feature-filled filesystem out there right now, and it has been for the last 6+ years or so.
So for me it's XFS on everything except /boot partitions.
No fschk's with XFS either.
I have tens of terabytes on XFS and have never lost one piece of data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150681</id>
	<title>Its good for general use</title>
	<author>revjtanton</author>
	<datestamp>1243709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ive used it for the past few months on my netbook, however I've only recently tried the Fedora 11 build on ext4 on my desktop.  I was impressed w/ the boot speed on my netbook, and for the netbook thats all that really matters.  I had absolutely no problems w/ the netbook using Jaunty UNR and ext4.</p><p>I did have some problems w/Fedora on my desktop though.  It booted nice, and did all the easy stuff well (web browsing, office stuff, etc.) but it got all screwy w/Wine and Eclipse.  It might be the GPU I have, or the lack of driver support for Fedora w/it, but Wine ran extremely badly with Steam and Left 4 Dead as compared to a Fedora 10 build w/ ext3.  Also I had the typically reported problems w/ext4 and data loss when I was doing some Android dev in Eclipse.</p><p>Like anything new in the open source community there are bugs to be hashed out.  If nobody uses it and nobody reports the bugs then it won't get better.  The boot speed gives it value.  Windows 7 RC is booting only slightly slower than ext4 (at least on my system) so if Linux is going to make its stand its got to do certain things to make it distinct.  I believe simple things like boot-time and broad dev support are the areas that Linux can shine and to that end it appeals to the right clientele to take it in the right direction as a community.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ive used it for the past few months on my netbook , however I 've only recently tried the Fedora 11 build on ext4 on my desktop .
I was impressed w/ the boot speed on my netbook , and for the netbook thats all that really matters .
I had absolutely no problems w/ the netbook using Jaunty UNR and ext4.I did have some problems w/Fedora on my desktop though .
It booted nice , and did all the easy stuff well ( web browsing , office stuff , etc .
) but it got all screwy w/Wine and Eclipse .
It might be the GPU I have , or the lack of driver support for Fedora w/it , but Wine ran extremely badly with Steam and Left 4 Dead as compared to a Fedora 10 build w/ ext3 .
Also I had the typically reported problems w/ext4 and data loss when I was doing some Android dev in Eclipse.Like anything new in the open source community there are bugs to be hashed out .
If nobody uses it and nobody reports the bugs then it wo n't get better .
The boot speed gives it value .
Windows 7 RC is booting only slightly slower than ext4 ( at least on my system ) so if Linux is going to make its stand its got to do certain things to make it distinct .
I believe simple things like boot-time and broad dev support are the areas that Linux can shine and to that end it appeals to the right clientele to take it in the right direction as a community .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ive used it for the past few months on my netbook, however I've only recently tried the Fedora 11 build on ext4 on my desktop.
I was impressed w/ the boot speed on my netbook, and for the netbook thats all that really matters.
I had absolutely no problems w/ the netbook using Jaunty UNR and ext4.I did have some problems w/Fedora on my desktop though.
It booted nice, and did all the easy stuff well (web browsing, office stuff, etc.
) but it got all screwy w/Wine and Eclipse.
It might be the GPU I have, or the lack of driver support for Fedora w/it, but Wine ran extremely badly with Steam and Left 4 Dead as compared to a Fedora 10 build w/ ext3.
Also I had the typically reported problems w/ext4 and data loss when I was doing some Android dev in Eclipse.Like anything new in the open source community there are bugs to be hashed out.
If nobody uses it and nobody reports the bugs then it won't get better.
The boot speed gives it value.
Windows 7 RC is booting only slightly slower than ext4 (at least on my system) so if Linux is going to make its stand its got to do certain things to make it distinct.
I believe simple things like boot-time and broad dev support are the areas that Linux can shine and to that end it appeals to the right clientele to take it in the right direction as a community.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150843</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love you more than a person ought to love an anonymous poster on a web site.</p><p>The whole point of computers is to make them do things that the user wants them to do. Ext4 as delivered has been a clear violation of that standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love you more than a person ought to love an anonymous poster on a web site.The whole point of computers is to make them do things that the user wants them to do .
Ext4 as delivered has been a clear violation of that standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love you more than a person ought to love an anonymous poster on a web site.The whole point of computers is to make them do things that the user wants them to do.
Ext4 as delivered has been a clear violation of that standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151241</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1243714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakes</p></div><p>Actually, I'll take the process you described above over what occurs at Microsoft or other closed-source shops any day.  They also have their fair share of stubborn, arrogant developers with the kind of attitude displayed above.  The reason you don't see the kind of detailed analysis of what happened all the time like the one above is simply that it all occurs behind closed doors.  Oh, and because of that, you don't see the kind of outcry that eventually leads to patches until after the product ships, if ever.  Microsoft can say "we can't help it if a hardware crash corrupts your data" as well as anyone else.</p><p>Everything else in the post is right, it's just wrong in the implications that this is somehow unique to Linux, or indeed anything other than substantially less common in Linux than at Microsoft or other such corporate development communities.  Frankly, it's more common where it's less likely to result in a public airing like the one above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakesActually , I 'll take the process you described above over what occurs at Microsoft or other closed-source shops any day .
They also have their fair share of stubborn , arrogant developers with the kind of attitude displayed above .
The reason you do n't see the kind of detailed analysis of what happened all the time like the one above is simply that it all occurs behind closed doors .
Oh , and because of that , you do n't see the kind of outcry that eventually leads to patches until after the product ships , if ever .
Microsoft can say " we ca n't help it if a hardware crash corrupts your data " as well as anyone else.Everything else in the post is right , it 's just wrong in the implications that this is somehow unique to Linux , or indeed anything other than substantially less common in Linux than at Microsoft or other such corporate development communities .
Frankly , it 's more common where it 's less likely to result in a public airing like the one above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakesActually, I'll take the process you described above over what occurs at Microsoft or other closed-source shops any day.
They also have their fair share of stubborn, arrogant developers with the kind of attitude displayed above.
The reason you don't see the kind of detailed analysis of what happened all the time like the one above is simply that it all occurs behind closed doors.
Oh, and because of that, you don't see the kind of outcry that eventually leads to patches until after the product ships, if ever.
Microsoft can say "we can't help it if a hardware crash corrupts your data" as well as anyone else.Everything else in the post is right, it's just wrong in the implications that this is somehow unique to Linux, or indeed anything other than substantially less common in Linux than at Microsoft or other such corporate development communities.
Frankly, it's more common where it's less likely to result in a public airing like the one above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257</id>
	<title>Um, yes, it's called fsck.</title>
	<author>dandaman32</author>
	<datestamp>1243705980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using ext4 on an encrypted partition on my tiny X41 tablet. The hard disk is 5400RPM IIRC, so when Ubuntu decides to run fsck due to a scheduled run or an unclean shutdown after a certain bug manifests itself, I don't have to sit there for 10 minutes or more waiting for fsck to run. That for me and many other casual users is probably the biggest advantage of ext4.</p><p>Does a laptop count as production? In the eyes of an everyday user, yes. My laptop is very much "production" IMHO, and I trust ext4 enough to not magically make all my school assignments disappear.</p><p>Digressing a bit, I haven't seen any of the data loss either, though I use GNOME and not KDE. I do think that if an application relies on specific undocumented behavior, that the application should change, not the filesystem driver. It's acceptable that the kernel developers are doing their best to get temporary workarounds into place, but the permanent solution is to fix the applications so they don't depend on undocumented behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using ext4 on an encrypted partition on my tiny X41 tablet .
The hard disk is 5400RPM IIRC , so when Ubuntu decides to run fsck due to a scheduled run or an unclean shutdown after a certain bug manifests itself , I do n't have to sit there for 10 minutes or more waiting for fsck to run .
That for me and many other casual users is probably the biggest advantage of ext4.Does a laptop count as production ?
In the eyes of an everyday user , yes .
My laptop is very much " production " IMHO , and I trust ext4 enough to not magically make all my school assignments disappear.Digressing a bit , I have n't seen any of the data loss either , though I use GNOME and not KDE .
I do think that if an application relies on specific undocumented behavior , that the application should change , not the filesystem driver .
It 's acceptable that the kernel developers are doing their best to get temporary workarounds into place , but the permanent solution is to fix the applications so they do n't depend on undocumented behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using ext4 on an encrypted partition on my tiny X41 tablet.
The hard disk is 5400RPM IIRC, so when Ubuntu decides to run fsck due to a scheduled run or an unclean shutdown after a certain bug manifests itself, I don't have to sit there for 10 minutes or more waiting for fsck to run.
That for me and many other casual users is probably the biggest advantage of ext4.Does a laptop count as production?
In the eyes of an everyday user, yes.
My laptop is very much "production" IMHO, and I trust ext4 enough to not magically make all my school assignments disappear.Digressing a bit, I haven't seen any of the data loss either, though I use GNOME and not KDE.
I do think that if an application relies on specific undocumented behavior, that the application should change, not the filesystem driver.
It's acceptable that the kernel developers are doing their best to get temporary workarounds into place, but the permanent solution is to fix the applications so they don't depend on undocumented behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152323</id>
	<title>That is something I find peculiar...</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1243677840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they went to journalling filesystems, by and large a simple mount operation turned into a mini-recovery operation, a psuedo-fsck if you will.  This would even happen on read-only mounts, which to me violates expectations of no disk data being modified.</p><p>JFS had one 'quirk' that I think they got right, journal replay was an fsck-level event.  A filesystem with a dirty journal could only be mounted read-only and the journal replay code was in fsck and had to be ran to enable remount read-write.  There are numerous reasons why I stopped using JFS, but that is one point I kinda agreed with their quirkiness on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they went to journalling filesystems , by and large a simple mount operation turned into a mini-recovery operation , a psuedo-fsck if you will .
This would even happen on read-only mounts , which to me violates expectations of no disk data being modified.JFS had one 'quirk ' that I think they got right , journal replay was an fsck-level event .
A filesystem with a dirty journal could only be mounted read-only and the journal replay code was in fsck and had to be ran to enable remount read-write .
There are numerous reasons why I stopped using JFS , but that is one point I kinda agreed with their quirkiness on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they went to journalling filesystems, by and large a simple mount operation turned into a mini-recovery operation, a psuedo-fsck if you will.
This would even happen on read-only mounts, which to me violates expectations of no disk data being modified.JFS had one 'quirk' that I think they got right, journal replay was an fsck-level event.
A filesystem with a dirty journal could only be mounted read-only and the journal replay code was in fsck and had to be ran to enable remount read-write.
There are numerous reasons why I stopped using JFS, but that is one point I kinda agreed with their quirkiness on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150561</id>
	<title>wait until at least 2.6.30+</title>
	<author>xenoterracide</author>
	<datestamp>1243708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>last I checked some patches for the dealloc empty file problem was being merged in 2.6.30. if you want to avoid it but want some other advantages like faster fscks you could go with data=journal on your filesystems which is a bit slower but also disables dealloc, while still having extents, barriers, and other ext4 benefits. I've been using data=journal on my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home partition without a single problem.</p><p>it also depends a lot on what you have in 'production'. a web server that's mostly doing reads it should be fine for. a heavy email server... well.. can you afford to lose email on a crash? I think it might be alright for a server that just does mta but not the fs for the actual mailbox's (with dealloc anyways). database server should be fine, because the database's job is to make sure data hits the disk, among other things. dns servers are a very read heavy so again I would think it'd be fine. so basically you need to watch anything that's heavy write and not to a database, and even then only with dealloc.</p><p>still as I'm sure others have said, it's a good idea to wait on new tech like this. some tools don't yet recognize that ext4 is not ext3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>last I checked some patches for the dealloc empty file problem was being merged in 2.6.30. if you want to avoid it but want some other advantages like faster fscks you could go with data = journal on your filesystems which is a bit slower but also disables dealloc , while still having extents , barriers , and other ext4 benefits .
I 've been using data = journal on my /home partition without a single problem.it also depends a lot on what you have in 'production' .
a web server that 's mostly doing reads it should be fine for .
a heavy email server... well.. can you afford to lose email on a crash ?
I think it might be alright for a server that just does mta but not the fs for the actual mailbox 's ( with dealloc anyways ) .
database server should be fine , because the database 's job is to make sure data hits the disk , among other things .
dns servers are a very read heavy so again I would think it 'd be fine .
so basically you need to watch anything that 's heavy write and not to a database , and even then only with dealloc.still as I 'm sure others have said , it 's a good idea to wait on new tech like this .
some tools do n't yet recognize that ext4 is not ext3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>last I checked some patches for the dealloc empty file problem was being merged in 2.6.30. if you want to avoid it but want some other advantages like faster fscks you could go with data=journal on your filesystems which is a bit slower but also disables dealloc, while still having extents, barriers, and other ext4 benefits.
I've been using data=journal on my /home partition without a single problem.it also depends a lot on what you have in 'production'.
a web server that's mostly doing reads it should be fine for.
a heavy email server... well.. can you afford to lose email on a crash?
I think it might be alright for a server that just does mta but not the fs for the actual mailbox's (with dealloc anyways).
database server should be fine, because the database's job is to make sure data hits the disk, among other things.
dns servers are a very read heavy so again I would think it'd be fine.
so basically you need to watch anything that's heavy write and not to a database, and even then only with dealloc.still as I'm sure others have said, it's a good idea to wait on new tech like this.
some tools don't yet recognize that ext4 is not ext3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150905</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1243711560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The greatest danger to Linux's success is not Microsoft. It's the hubris of many Linux developers, users, and advocates, who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user's problems</p></div></blockquote><p>Unlike Microsoft who takes all responsibility from any malfunction in its softw--Oh that's right the EULA crowd never does.</p><p>Come on, no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default, nor Debian stable, nor OpenBSD AFAIK.</p><p>When you are dealing with the bleeding edge its normal for things to break. This is not disavowing responsibility, its fixing the problem where the problem is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greatest danger to Linux 's success is not Microsoft .
It 's the hubris of many Linux developers , users , and advocates , who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user 's problemsUnlike Microsoft who takes all responsibility from any malfunction in its softw--Oh that 's right the EULA crowd never does.Come on , no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default , nor Debian stable , nor OpenBSD AFAIK.When you are dealing with the bleeding edge its normal for things to break .
This is not disavowing responsibility , its fixing the problem where the problem is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greatest danger to Linux's success is not Microsoft.
It's the hubris of many Linux developers, users, and advocates, who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user's problemsUnlike Microsoft who takes all responsibility from any malfunction in its softw--Oh that's right the EULA crowd never does.Come on, no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default, nor Debian stable, nor OpenBSD AFAIK.When you are dealing with the bleeding edge its normal for things to break.
This is not disavowing responsibility, its fixing the problem where the problem is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150329</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are asking the wrong question. Ext4 does not need fixing, the apps do.</p><p>Are your apps patched yet?</p></div><p>At the risk of revealing just how incredibly inept I am about file systems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... shouldn't your "apps" (and by apps I am guessing you mean applications) be calling the operating system to do anything to the file system?  I mean, isn't the point of operating systems to create or contain APIs and the like that allow you to interface with <i>any</i> file system type that the OS supports?  <br> <br>

I guess what I'm asking is just the technicality that only his operating system need be patched and tested for it?  <br> <br>

Again, I don't really do this type of coding and in all the C programming I've done, I've never seen a need or way even to get down and dirty with the file system.  I can dream up cases (like Google's bigtable) where that may be desirable with benefits if well planned but I would imagine most of the time it would be unwise and unsafe and put you dependent on a type of file system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are asking the wrong question .
Ext4 does not need fixing , the apps do.Are your apps patched yet ? At the risk of revealing just how incredibly inept I am about file systems ... should n't your " apps " ( and by apps I am guessing you mean applications ) be calling the operating system to do anything to the file system ?
I mean , is n't the point of operating systems to create or contain APIs and the like that allow you to interface with any file system type that the OS supports ?
I guess what I 'm asking is just the technicality that only his operating system need be patched and tested for it ?
Again , I do n't really do this type of coding and in all the C programming I 've done , I 've never seen a need or way even to get down and dirty with the file system .
I can dream up cases ( like Google 's bigtable ) where that may be desirable with benefits if well planned but I would imagine most of the time it would be unwise and unsafe and put you dependent on a type of file system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are asking the wrong question.
Ext4 does not need fixing, the apps do.Are your apps patched yet?At the risk of revealing just how incredibly inept I am about file systems ... shouldn't your "apps" (and by apps I am guessing you mean applications) be calling the operating system to do anything to the file system?
I mean, isn't the point of operating systems to create or contain APIs and the like that allow you to interface with any file system type that the OS supports?
I guess what I'm asking is just the technicality that only his operating system need be patched and tested for it?
Again, I don't really do this type of coding and in all the C programming I've done, I've never seen a need or way even to get down and dirty with the file system.
I can dream up cases (like Google's bigtable) where that may be desirable with benefits if well planned but I would imagine most of the time it would be unwise and unsafe and put you dependent on a type of file system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151737</id>
	<title>I haven't had a problem with it yet.</title>
	<author>jadedoto</author>
	<datestamp>1243674120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been running it for a few months now, and haven't had a single issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been running it for a few months now , and have n't had a single issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been running it for a few months now, and haven't had a single issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153589</id>
	<title>To actually try to answer the question...</title>
	<author>fmayhar</author>
	<datestamp>1243686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the three reasons are performance, performance and performance.</p><p>Ext4 has extents (and therefore loses indirect blocks), a better on-disk layout policy and generally better algorithms in its allocation code. Of course, performance varies depending on the app in question but we've found that it beats ext2 in almost every respect in our environment.  (We don't run ext3 because journals cost performance [by buying reliability] and that's all ext3 gets you: a journal.  This is why we wrote and submitted the no-journal hack for ext4.)  In particular, ext4 beats ext2 for write-heavy loads by, well, lots.  Yes, we've measured this stuff.</p><p>So why would one go to ext4 over ext3?  Because it's a better file system, not to mention one that's actually (a) being developed and (b) past pre-alpha.</p><p>Of course, our environment is a tad different from most.  We have *ahem* more than a \_couple\_ of servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the three reasons are performance , performance and performance.Ext4 has extents ( and therefore loses indirect blocks ) , a better on-disk layout policy and generally better algorithms in its allocation code .
Of course , performance varies depending on the app in question but we 've found that it beats ext2 in almost every respect in our environment .
( We do n't run ext3 because journals cost performance [ by buying reliability ] and that 's all ext3 gets you : a journal .
This is why we wrote and submitted the no-journal hack for ext4 .
) In particular , ext4 beats ext2 for write-heavy loads by , well , lots .
Yes , we 've measured this stuff.So why would one go to ext4 over ext3 ?
Because it 's a better file system , not to mention one that 's actually ( a ) being developed and ( b ) past pre-alpha.Of course , our environment is a tad different from most .
We have * ahem * more than a \ _couple \ _ of servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the three reasons are performance, performance and performance.Ext4 has extents (and therefore loses indirect blocks), a better on-disk layout policy and generally better algorithms in its allocation code.
Of course, performance varies depending on the app in question but we've found that it beats ext2 in almost every respect in our environment.
(We don't run ext3 because journals cost performance [by buying reliability] and that's all ext3 gets you: a journal.
This is why we wrote and submitted the no-journal hack for ext4.
)  In particular, ext4 beats ext2 for write-heavy loads by, well, lots.
Yes, we've measured this stuff.So why would one go to ext4 over ext3?
Because it's a better file system, not to mention one that's actually (a) being developed and (b) past pre-alpha.Of course, our environment is a tad different from most.
We have *ahem* more than a \_couple\_ of servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151259</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1243714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only that was the policy at Black Mesa...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only that was the policy at Black Mesa.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only that was the policy at Black Mesa...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153949</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>Master of Transhuman</author>
	<datestamp>1243688580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, man, THANK YOU! For sending me to the "Website is down" YouTube video - I haven't laughed like that in months! That thing deserves a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post of its own! I've sent the link to some of my clients, penis picture regardless!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , man , THANK YOU !
For sending me to the " Website is down " YouTube video - I have n't laughed like that in months !
That thing deserves a / .
post of its own !
I 've sent the link to some of my clients , penis picture regardless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, man, THANK YOU!
For sending me to the "Website is down" YouTube video - I haven't laughed like that in months!
That thing deserves a /.
post of its own!
I've sent the link to some of my clients, penis picture regardless!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150541</id>
	<title>You're Asking Slashdot?</title>
	<author>welshbyte</author>
	<datestamp>1243708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should be asking this question in a more authoritative forum. The majority of Slashdot readers are likely to just regurgitate their perceived status of ext4 from the last time ext4 was mentioned on Slashdot and I know for certain that ext4 has had more testing and development since then.

Try asking the ext4 development team; they're very nice, helpful people in my experience. I refer you to the #ext4 channel on irc.oftc.net and the linux-ext4 mailing list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be asking this question in a more authoritative forum .
The majority of Slashdot readers are likely to just regurgitate their perceived status of ext4 from the last time ext4 was mentioned on Slashdot and I know for certain that ext4 has had more testing and development since then .
Try asking the ext4 development team ; they 're very nice , helpful people in my experience .
I refer you to the # ext4 channel on irc.oftc.net and the linux-ext4 mailing list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be asking this question in a more authoritative forum.
The majority of Slashdot readers are likely to just regurgitate their perceived status of ext4 from the last time ext4 was mentioned on Slashdot and I know for certain that ext4 has had more testing and development since then.
Try asking the ext4 development team; they're very nice, helpful people in my experience.
I refer you to the #ext4 channel on irc.oftc.net and the linux-ext4 mailing list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150387</id>
	<title>Connection Interrupted errors loading slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone else getting a lot of these "connection intrupted" errors when clicking on stories?<br>It's been going on for a week now and is making slashdot almost unreadable and annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else getting a lot of these " connection intrupted " errors when clicking on stories ? It 's been going on for a week now and is making slashdot almost unreadable and annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else getting a lot of these "connection intrupted" errors when clicking on stories?It's been going on for a week now and is making slashdot almost unreadable and annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151649</id>
	<title>Re:Theodore Ts'o: Don&#226;(TM)t fear the fsync!</title>
	<author>mybecq</author>
	<datestamp>1243716780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, his blog post is titled <i>Don't fear the fsync!</i></p><p>He then gives this "advice" under the heading <i>(Perceived) performance problems with fsync()</i> </p><blockquote><div><p>An fsync() call every 15, 30, or 60 minutes, done by a thread which doesn't block the application's UI</p></div></blockquote><p>The lesson is thus: "Don't fear it, but use it really sparingly!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , his blog post is titled Do n't fear the fsync ! He then gives this " advice " under the heading ( Perceived ) performance problems with fsync ( ) An fsync ( ) call every 15 , 30 , or 60 minutes , done by a thread which does n't block the application 's UIThe lesson is thus : " Do n't fear it , but use it really sparingly !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, his blog post is titled Don't fear the fsync!He then gives this "advice" under the heading (Perceived) performance problems with fsync() An fsync() call every 15, 30, or 60 minutes, done by a thread which doesn't block the application's UIThe lesson is thus: "Don't fear it, but use it really sparingly!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150653</id>
	<title>Re:Um, yes, it's called fsck.</title>
	<author>hackstraw</author>
	<datestamp>1243709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm clueless, and I'll be corrected shortly, but a) didn't ext3 bring this functionality back in in 2000 or so?  b) don't most distributions format their partitions with the options to <i>not</i> do fsck's periodically based on mount count or time?</p><p>&lt;insert paragraph break about here&gt;</p><p>I know that every system I ever have to create a filesystem manually I remove the counts to prevent that quick reboot from being a slow reboot and a trip to the data center to babysit the thing through a fsck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm clueless , and I 'll be corrected shortly , but a ) did n't ext3 bring this functionality back in in 2000 or so ?
b ) do n't most distributions format their partitions with the options to not do fsck 's periodically based on mount count or time ? I know that every system I ever have to create a filesystem manually I remove the counts to prevent that quick reboot from being a slow reboot and a trip to the data center to babysit the thing through a fsck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm clueless, and I'll be corrected shortly, but a) didn't ext3 bring this functionality back in in 2000 or so?
b) don't most distributions format their partitions with the options to not do fsck's periodically based on mount count or time?I know that every system I ever have to create a filesystem manually I remove the counts to prevent that quick reboot from being a slow reboot and a trip to the data center to babysit the thing through a fsck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</id>
	<title>Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are asking the wrong question. Ext4 does not need fixing, the apps do.</p><p>Are your apps patched yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are asking the wrong question .
Ext4 does not need fixing , the apps do.Are your apps patched yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are asking the wrong question.
Ext4 does not need fixing, the apps do.Are your apps patched yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150617</id>
	<title>moD down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243709040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will r3call 7hat it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will r3call 7hat it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will r3call 7hat it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151211</id>
	<title>We had this problem</title>
	<author>xiox</author>
	<datestamp>1243714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our 8TB raid system would get trashed after copying data onto it (group descriptor checksums on fsck). It looks like it was an ext4 bug. They fixed it about a week or two ago, <a href="http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg13191.html" title="spinics.net">here</a> [spinics.net].  Maybe it will get in your kernel soon. I'm not going to start ext4 on any production system for at least 6 months I think now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our 8TB raid system would get trashed after copying data onto it ( group descriptor checksums on fsck ) .
It looks like it was an ext4 bug .
They fixed it about a week or two ago , here [ spinics.net ] .
Maybe it will get in your kernel soon .
I 'm not going to start ext4 on any production system for at least 6 months I think now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our 8TB raid system would get trashed after copying data onto it (group descriptor checksums on fsck).
It looks like it was an ext4 bug.
They fixed it about a week or two ago, here [spinics.net].
Maybe it will get in your kernel soon.
I'm not going to start ext4 on any production system for at least 6 months I think now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153901</id>
	<title>Heard of "Time Tested?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard the term "Time Tested?"<br>EXT4 will be "time tested" in another 3 years.</p><p>That's when production users will **know** how safe this file system is to deploy.<br>Before that, you have a bunch of unproven yahoos saying "works fine for me" OR "crashes my system constantly" based on individual experience.</p><p>I won't be touching it for another 2.5 years and then it will go into a lab for 6 months of testing with<br>- our hardware<br>- our operating systems<br>- our patch methods<br>- our applications<br>- our people running the systems.</p><p>Good luck and be careful out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard the term " Time Tested ?
" EXT4 will be " time tested " in another 3 years.That 's when production users will * * know * * how safe this file system is to deploy.Before that , you have a bunch of unproven yahoos saying " works fine for me " OR " crashes my system constantly " based on individual experience.I wo n't be touching it for another 2.5 years and then it will go into a lab for 6 months of testing with- our hardware- our operating systems- our patch methods- our applications- our people running the systems.Good luck and be careful out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard the term "Time Tested?
"EXT4 will be "time tested" in another 3 years.That's when production users will **know** how safe this file system is to deploy.Before that, you have a bunch of unproven yahoos saying "works fine for me" OR "crashes my system constantly" based on individual experience.I won't be touching it for another 2.5 years and then it will go into a lab for 6 months of testing with- our hardware- our operating systems- our patch methods- our applications- our people running the systems.Good luck and be careful out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150331</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>zqtvlyj</author>
	<datestamp>1243706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is amazing
<a href="http://www.nowgoal.com/17.shtml" title="nowgoal.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nowgoal.com/17.shtml</a> [nowgoal.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is amazing http : //www.nowgoal.com/17.shtml [ nowgoal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is amazing
http://www.nowgoal.com/17.shtml [nowgoal.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150697</id>
	<title>Re:Not for me...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1243709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As my sibling post said, <a href="http://www.fs-driver.org/" title="fs-driver.org">http://www.fs-driver.org/</a> [fs-driver.org] is a Windows File System driver drive ext2, and thanks to forward compatibility (as I understand it), ext3 works too.  <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd" title="sourceforge.net">http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd</a> [sourceforge.net] is another alternative.</p><p>You should be warned that whenever I've used the first tool to write to the partition, I've ended up with Ubuntu fscking it on boot.  But I've never noticed any problems like data corruption from using it.  The second one also seems OK, although when browsing the disk from the Command Prompt it shows entries for . and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. in the root, which confuses dir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As my sibling post said , http : //www.fs-driver.org/ [ fs-driver.org ] is a Windows File System driver drive ext2 , and thanks to forward compatibility ( as I understand it ) , ext3 works too .
http : //sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd [ sourceforge.net ] is another alternative.You should be warned that whenever I 've used the first tool to write to the partition , I 've ended up with Ubuntu fscking it on boot .
But I 've never noticed any problems like data corruption from using it .
The second one also seems OK , although when browsing the disk from the Command Prompt it shows entries for .
and .. in the root , which confuses dir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As my sibling post said, http://www.fs-driver.org/ [fs-driver.org] is a Windows File System driver drive ext2, and thanks to forward compatibility (as I understand it), ext3 works too.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd [sourceforge.net] is another alternative.You should be warned that whenever I've used the first tool to write to the partition, I've ended up with Ubuntu fscking it on boot.
But I've never noticed any problems like data corruption from using it.
The second one also seems OK, although when browsing the disk from the Command Prompt it shows entries for .
and .. in the root, which confuses dir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157943</id>
	<title>Not for me...</title>
	<author>shreddertomas</author>
	<datestamp>1243782420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I know is that I converted my laptop from ext3 to ext4. It became unstable as hell freezing over all the time. Just reinstalled it with ext3 and everything is fine and stable.<br>Possible it was because one time my comp froze up and had to be forcibly shut down, after that an fsck was run that had to fix some errors. After that hell broke loose.<br>On a laptop it should be possible that the battery runs out without having to reinstall everything, at least that works with ext3.<br>So far I value the robustness of ext3 more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I know is that I converted my laptop from ext3 to ext4 .
It became unstable as hell freezing over all the time .
Just reinstalled it with ext3 and everything is fine and stable.Possible it was because one time my comp froze up and had to be forcibly shut down , after that an fsck was run that had to fix some errors .
After that hell broke loose.On a laptop it should be possible that the battery runs out without having to reinstall everything , at least that works with ext3.So far I value the robustness of ext3 more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I know is that I converted my laptop from ext3 to ext4.
It became unstable as hell freezing over all the time.
Just reinstalled it with ext3 and everything is fine and stable.Possible it was because one time my comp froze up and had to be forcibly shut down, after that an fsck was run that had to fix some errors.
After that hell broke loose.On a laptop it should be possible that the battery runs out without having to reinstall everything, at least that works with ext3.So far I value the robustness of ext3 more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150443</id>
	<title>Not for me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never used anything other than Reiser3 with Linux.  Might not be the most reliable or fast, but it has other advantages.</p><p>-  Undeletion.<br>-  Partition resizing.<br>-  Readable from within Windows via <a href="http://yareg.akucom.de/" title="akucom.de">YaReG</a> [akucom.de].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never used anything other than Reiser3 with Linux .
Might not be the most reliable or fast , but it has other advantages.- Undeletion.- Partition resizing.- Readable from within Windows via YaReG [ akucom.de ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never used anything other than Reiser3 with Linux.
Might not be the most reliable or fast, but it has other advantages.-  Undeletion.-  Partition resizing.-  Readable from within Windows via YaReG [akucom.de].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150887</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>427\_ci\_505</author>
	<datestamp>1243711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who recently had the latest ubuntu trash every inode on my ext3 partitions, I'd have to say no. Not because my case is related to ext4 in any way, but because if a kernel (2.6.28) can get ext3 wrong, I shudder to think what happens with ext4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who recently had the latest ubuntu trash every inode on my ext3 partitions , I 'd have to say no .
Not because my case is related to ext4 in any way , but because if a kernel ( 2.6.28 ) can get ext3 wrong , I shudder to think what happens with ext4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who recently had the latest ubuntu trash every inode on my ext3 partitions, I'd have to say no.
Not because my case is related to ext4 in any way, but because if a kernel (2.6.28) can get ext3 wrong, I shudder to think what happens with ext4.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155493</id>
	<title>It's working for me . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not running what you would call a production system. But I installed the latest Ubuntu with the EXT4 file system and it works just fine.</p><p>If you're concerned with specific applications, what is keeping you from testing those on a limited basis in a production environment with EXT4, making frequent backups on those computers as a precaution against what you are worried about?</p><p>If you're happy with EXT3 and it works without problems in your work place, why do you feel the need to change? Yes, my Ubuntu boots faster with EXT4. Early development feedback suggested that this would be the case. But once the computer is up and running, I can't say that I notice a large speed difference, so if you're looking at productivity improvements, I wouldn't bother with changing your file system.</p><p>Why not just wait until EXT4 has been in general use for a while, then make the switch when you upgrade your Linux distro? By then, if your concerns are valid, they will have either been addressed or not, and you will know if it's something you should avoid.</p><p>My understanding, explained by the development people at Ubuntu, is that there were two ways of keeping track of where data was on a hard disk partition, and some programs didn't work well with one of them. That issue was addressed in Ubuntu, and I am sure it was also addressed in any recent major distro that is offering the option of using the EXT4 file system. I don't remember the specifics, as it was complicated and beyond me to completely understand it, but I grasped the basic concept and was satisfied that they pinned down the issue that caused serious problems and addressed it well enough to include the option to install that file system when installing Ubuntu.</p><p>Whether you switch file systems or not, you should have a good backup system. Some businesses still don't have a reliable backup plan. I hope you're not one of them. Whether you're using EXT3 or 4, things can and do happen, even hardware failure that is independent of whatever file system you are using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not running what you would call a production system .
But I installed the latest Ubuntu with the EXT4 file system and it works just fine.If you 're concerned with specific applications , what is keeping you from testing those on a limited basis in a production environment with EXT4 , making frequent backups on those computers as a precaution against what you are worried about ? If you 're happy with EXT3 and it works without problems in your work place , why do you feel the need to change ?
Yes , my Ubuntu boots faster with EXT4 .
Early development feedback suggested that this would be the case .
But once the computer is up and running , I ca n't say that I notice a large speed difference , so if you 're looking at productivity improvements , I would n't bother with changing your file system.Why not just wait until EXT4 has been in general use for a while , then make the switch when you upgrade your Linux distro ?
By then , if your concerns are valid , they will have either been addressed or not , and you will know if it 's something you should avoid.My understanding , explained by the development people at Ubuntu , is that there were two ways of keeping track of where data was on a hard disk partition , and some programs did n't work well with one of them .
That issue was addressed in Ubuntu , and I am sure it was also addressed in any recent major distro that is offering the option of using the EXT4 file system .
I do n't remember the specifics , as it was complicated and beyond me to completely understand it , but I grasped the basic concept and was satisfied that they pinned down the issue that caused serious problems and addressed it well enough to include the option to install that file system when installing Ubuntu.Whether you switch file systems or not , you should have a good backup system .
Some businesses still do n't have a reliable backup plan .
I hope you 're not one of them .
Whether you 're using EXT3 or 4 , things can and do happen , even hardware failure that is independent of whatever file system you are using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not running what you would call a production system.
But I installed the latest Ubuntu with the EXT4 file system and it works just fine.If you're concerned with specific applications, what is keeping you from testing those on a limited basis in a production environment with EXT4, making frequent backups on those computers as a precaution against what you are worried about?If you're happy with EXT3 and it works without problems in your work place, why do you feel the need to change?
Yes, my Ubuntu boots faster with EXT4.
Early development feedback suggested that this would be the case.
But once the computer is up and running, I can't say that I notice a large speed difference, so if you're looking at productivity improvements, I wouldn't bother with changing your file system.Why not just wait until EXT4 has been in general use for a while, then make the switch when you upgrade your Linux distro?
By then, if your concerns are valid, they will have either been addressed or not, and you will know if it's something you should avoid.My understanding, explained by the development people at Ubuntu, is that there were two ways of keeping track of where data was on a hard disk partition, and some programs didn't work well with one of them.
That issue was addressed in Ubuntu, and I am sure it was also addressed in any recent major distro that is offering the option of using the EXT4 file system.
I don't remember the specifics, as it was complicated and beyond me to completely understand it, but I grasped the basic concept and was satisfied that they pinned down the issue that caused serious problems and addressed it well enough to include the option to install that file system when installing Ubuntu.Whether you switch file systems or not, you should have a good backup system.
Some businesses still don't have a reliable backup plan.
I hope you're not one of them.
Whether you're using EXT3 or 4, things can and do happen, even hardware failure that is independent of whatever file system you are using.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152103</id>
	<title>Maybe it's just me...</title>
	<author>fluffman86</author>
	<datestamp>1243676160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but it seems like I've been getting random freeze-ups since using it.  Usually happens when downloading 500mb of gmail into evolution, or when deleting/adding more than 100 or 200 MB of files in one fell swoop.</p><p>See <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/327509" title="launchpad.net">https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/327509</a> [launchpad.net] for more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it seems like I 've been getting random freeze-ups since using it .
Usually happens when downloading 500mb of gmail into evolution , or when deleting/adding more than 100 or 200 MB of files in one fell swoop.See https : //bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/327509 [ launchpad.net ] for more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it seems like I've been getting random freeze-ups since using it.
Usually happens when downloading 500mb of gmail into evolution, or when deleting/adding more than 100 or 200 MB of files in one fell swoop.See https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/327509 [launchpad.net] for more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150919</id>
	<title>That you tube video kicks ass!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funniest thing I've seen in weeks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funniest thing I 've seen in weeks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funniest thing I've seen in weeks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150247</id>
	<title>maybe</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1243705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on why you are switching from an older filesystem to ext4.  It's a relatively new filesystem so you should probably expect it to be a bit more buggy when combined with software not designed for it.  From my limited experience with a combination of KDE and ext4 recently I'd wait on upgrading for a while.  Ext4 looks like it could be very interesting as software matures around it however, as it is currently KDE seemed to me at least a bit less stable on ext4 than it was on ext3.  however, I didn't stay with the filesystem as long as I should have so take this with a bit of salt...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on why you are switching from an older filesystem to ext4 .
It 's a relatively new filesystem so you should probably expect it to be a bit more buggy when combined with software not designed for it .
From my limited experience with a combination of KDE and ext4 recently I 'd wait on upgrading for a while .
Ext4 looks like it could be very interesting as software matures around it however , as it is currently KDE seemed to me at least a bit less stable on ext4 than it was on ext3 .
however , I did n't stay with the filesystem as long as I should have so take this with a bit of salt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on why you are switching from an older filesystem to ext4.
It's a relatively new filesystem so you should probably expect it to be a bit more buggy when combined with software not designed for it.
From my limited experience with a combination of KDE and ext4 recently I'd wait on upgrading for a while.
Ext4 looks like it could be very interesting as software matures around it however, as it is currently KDE seemed to me at least a bit less stable on ext4 than it was on ext3.
however, I didn't stay with the filesystem as long as I should have so take this with a bit of salt...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152171</id>
	<title>Ext4 is better for torrents</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1243676700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the torrent client creates the file (most fill it with zero to avoid fragmentation at the beginning), it's almost instantaneous, while with ext3 it can take a few dozens of seconds for large files. However I've experienced process lockups on ext4, nothing shows up in the log but the process accessing files on ext4 is unkillable (zombified).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the torrent client creates the file ( most fill it with zero to avoid fragmentation at the beginning ) , it 's almost instantaneous , while with ext3 it can take a few dozens of seconds for large files .
However I 've experienced process lockups on ext4 , nothing shows up in the log but the process accessing files on ext4 is unkillable ( zombified ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the torrent client creates the file (most fill it with zero to avoid fragmentation at the beginning), it's almost instantaneous, while with ext3 it can take a few dozens of seconds for large files.
However I've experienced process lockups on ext4, nothing shows up in the log but the process accessing files on ext4 is unkillable (zombified).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151045</id>
	<title>Caution</title>
	<author>ProteusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1243713000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My two cents worth: if in doubt, don't.  Wait a year for others to find the bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My two cents worth : if in doubt , do n't .
Wait a year for others to find the bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My two cents worth: if in doubt, don't.
Wait a year for others to find the bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155693</id>
	<title>What a lame post</title>
	<author>marcus</author>
	<datestamp>1243706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did this 'article' ever get past the filters?</p><p>Of course the answer is 'if you have to ask, then you can't afford it'.</p><p>While the P gave a very detailed response, the ultimate answer is: you should not be asking this question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this 'article ' ever get past the filters ? Of course the answer is 'if you have to ask , then you ca n't afford it'.While the P gave a very detailed response , the ultimate answer is : you should not be asking this question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this 'article' ever get past the filters?Of course the answer is 'if you have to ask, then you can't afford it'.While the P gave a very detailed response, the ultimate answer is: you should not be asking this question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159353</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's "safe enough"</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1243794180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"How do you know? Do you do md5sums on every file?"<br>
tripwire? At one time this was part of a standard Red Hat installation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" How do you know ?
Do you do md5sums on every file ?
" tripwire ?
At one time this was part of a standard Red Hat installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How do you know?
Do you do md5sums on every file?
"
tripwire?
At one time this was part of a standard Red Hat installation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28154763</id>
	<title>Better tool !!!</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1243696200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never used anything other than Reiser3 with Linux. Partition resizing.</p></div><p>Which by it self is a sure win of Reiser3/4(*) and Ext2/3/4 versus JFS and XFS which can only increase size.<br>That's part of the reason I'm using it too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Readable from within Windows via <a href="http://yareg.akucom.de/" title="akucom.de">YaReG</a> [akucom.de].</p></div><p>Another tool you might be interested by too :<br><a href="http://www.chrysocome.net/virtualvolumes" title="chrysocome.net">Virtual Volumes</a> [chrysocome.net].<br>- It's by the same guy who wrote Explore2fs<br>- It supports ReiserFS using the same tools (rtstools) as YaReG.<br>- It supports also RAID and LVM.<br>- Read/Write support.</p><p>And hoepfully, they'll end up adding WebDAV support so you can mount file systems under Windows.</p><p>(*): Now that development has been taken over by Edward Shishkin, shouldn't this get renamed as ShishkinFS ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never used anything other than Reiser3 with Linux .
Partition resizing.Which by it self is a sure win of Reiser3/4 ( * ) and Ext2/3/4 versus JFS and XFS which can only increase size.That 's part of the reason I 'm using it too.Readable from within Windows via YaReG [ akucom.de ] .Another tool you might be interested by too : Virtual Volumes [ chrysocome.net ] .- It 's by the same guy who wrote Explore2fs- It supports ReiserFS using the same tools ( rtstools ) as YaReG.- It supports also RAID and LVM.- Read/Write support.And hoepfully , they 'll end up adding WebDAV support so you can mount file systems under Windows .
( * ) : Now that development has been taken over by Edward Shishkin , should n't this get renamed as ShishkinFS ?
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never used anything other than Reiser3 with Linux.
Partition resizing.Which by it self is a sure win of Reiser3/4(*) and Ext2/3/4 versus JFS and XFS which can only increase size.That's part of the reason I'm using it too.Readable from within Windows via YaReG [akucom.de].Another tool you might be interested by too :Virtual Volumes [chrysocome.net].- It's by the same guy who wrote Explore2fs- It supports ReiserFS using the same tools (rtstools) as YaReG.- It supports also RAID and LVM.- Read/Write support.And hoepfully, they'll end up adding WebDAV support so you can mount file systems under Windows.
(*): Now that development has been taken over by Edward Shishkin, shouldn't this get renamed as ShishkinFS ?
:-P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159241</id>
	<title>Switched to ext4 - Time is money</title>
	<author>josephcmiller2</author>
	<datestamp>1243793340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I have ReiserFS on my laptop, and everyone here should really switch to that for Desktops at earliest convenience.  Quick fsck, reasonably reliable, extremely fast, extremely fast, faster than ext3, faster than ext4, very fast.

On my desktop computer however, I didn't have the time to take the system down to re-format for ReiserFS.  So I switched to ext4 because it's faster.  Time is money, don't argue "don't fix it if it ain't broke" with me.  I'll tell you when it's broke.  When the long-abandoned ReiserFS is fast as shit on a slow machine, but the ext3 looks like performance wasn't even considered when used on more recent hardware.  Time is money guys.  Yes, I can be more productive with ext4 when I have 8 virtual desktops and multiple projects for multiple companies requiring completely different application sets simultaneously on my computer and just trying not to get more than a week behind on any of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have ReiserFS on my laptop , and everyone here should really switch to that for Desktops at earliest convenience .
Quick fsck , reasonably reliable , extremely fast , extremely fast , faster than ext3 , faster than ext4 , very fast .
On my desktop computer however , I did n't have the time to take the system down to re-format for ReiserFS .
So I switched to ext4 because it 's faster .
Time is money , do n't argue " do n't fix it if it ai n't broke " with me .
I 'll tell you when it 's broke .
When the long-abandoned ReiserFS is fast as shit on a slow machine , but the ext3 looks like performance was n't even considered when used on more recent hardware .
Time is money guys .
Yes , I can be more productive with ext4 when I have 8 virtual desktops and multiple projects for multiple companies requiring completely different application sets simultaneously on my computer and just trying not to get more than a week behind on any of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have ReiserFS on my laptop, and everyone here should really switch to that for Desktops at earliest convenience.
Quick fsck, reasonably reliable, extremely fast, extremely fast, faster than ext3, faster than ext4, very fast.
On my desktop computer however, I didn't have the time to take the system down to re-format for ReiserFS.
So I switched to ext4 because it's faster.
Time is money, don't argue "don't fix it if it ain't broke" with me.
I'll tell you when it's broke.
When the long-abandoned ReiserFS is fast as shit on a slow machine, but the ext3 looks like performance wasn't even considered when used on more recent hardware.
Time is money guys.
Yes, I can be more productive with ext4 when I have 8 virtual desktops and multiple projects for multiple companies requiring completely different application sets simultaneously on my computer and just trying not to get more than a week behind on any of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150639</id>
	<title>Regretting using it..</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1243709280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have installed a system and have been getting resize inode invalid and group descriptors corrupted issues on clean reboots.  fsck has yet to fail me, and IO stress tests have demonstrated no general io corruption other than ext4 errors.</p><p>On the flipside, for my applications I haven't really gained much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have installed a system and have been getting resize inode invalid and group descriptors corrupted issues on clean reboots .
fsck has yet to fail me , and IO stress tests have demonstrated no general io corruption other than ext4 errors.On the flipside , for my applications I have n't really gained much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have installed a system and have been getting resize inode invalid and group descriptors corrupted issues on clean reboots.
fsck has yet to fail me, and IO stress tests have demonstrated no general io corruption other than ext4 errors.On the flipside, for my applications I haven't really gained much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151287</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1243714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ok so I'm gussing production = income = your ass?</p></div></blockquote><p>It means the one where those people we all hate (salesmen and accountants) do their stuff.  In other words, not the dev[1] system, not the one-of-n-different-flavours-of-test system, not the sandbox system.  Nor is it the training, or the QA system.  Get it?</p><p>This has been standard terminology since pretty much forever.</p><p>[1] before you need to guess again, that's short for "development".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok so I 'm gussing production = income = your ass ? It means the one where those people we all hate ( salesmen and accountants ) do their stuff .
In other words , not the dev [ 1 ] system , not the one-of-n-different-flavours-of-test system , not the sandbox system .
Nor is it the training , or the QA system .
Get it ? This has been standard terminology since pretty much forever .
[ 1 ] before you need to guess again , that 's short for " development " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok so I'm gussing production = income = your ass?It means the one where those people we all hate (salesmen and accountants) do their stuff.
In other words, not the dev[1] system, not the one-of-n-different-flavours-of-test system, not the sandbox system.
Nor is it the training, or the QA system.
Get it?This has been standard terminology since pretty much forever.
[1] before you need to guess again, that's short for "development".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151801</id>
	<title>"Probably?"</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1243674420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you answer someone's question about a feature being ready for production systems with the word "probably" instead of "absolutely," then it's not ready for production systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you answer someone 's question about a feature being ready for production systems with the word " probably " instead of " absolutely , " then it 's not ready for production systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you answer someone's question about a feature being ready for production systems with the word "probably" instead of "absolutely," then it's not ready for production systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150553</id>
	<title>Re:Um, yes, it's called fsck.</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1243708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reiserfs, ive been using it for years for fast fsck and it can handle a file rename gracefully too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O<br>Its not undocumented, the problem is kde was using write then rename to make sure there was an atomic operation an gaurantee the integrity of the file, nobody expects a rename to fail (and then ext4 came along and zeros metadata at bad times to improve the performance)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reiserfs , ive been using it for years for fast fsck and it can handle a file rename gracefully too : OIts not undocumented , the problem is kde was using write then rename to make sure there was an atomic operation an gaurantee the integrity of the file , nobody expects a rename to fail ( and then ext4 came along and zeros metadata at bad times to improve the performance ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reiserfs, ive been using it for years for fast fsck and it can handle a file rename gracefully too :OIts not undocumented, the problem is kde was using write then rename to make sure there was an atomic operation an gaurantee the integrity of the file, nobody expects a rename to fail (and then ext4 came along and zeros metadata at bad times to improve the performance)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150651</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>stinerman</author>
	<datestamp>1243709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is backward compatible with ext3</p></div></blockquote><p>Not if you decide to use extents, which is a major reason why you'd want to use ext4. Per your link:</p><p><i>The ext3 file system is partially forward compatible with ext4, that is, an ext4 filesystem can be mounted as an ext3 partition (using "ext3" as the filesystem type when mounting). However, if the ext4 partition uses extents (a major new feature of ext4), then the ability to mount the file system as ext3 is lost.</i> </p><p>But then again, if you're looking at ext4 just for extents, there have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extent\_(file\_systems)" title="wikipedia.org">other file systems</a> [wikipedia.org] that have used extents for awhile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is backward compatible with ext3Not if you decide to use extents , which is a major reason why you 'd want to use ext4 .
Per your link : The ext3 file system is partially forward compatible with ext4 , that is , an ext4 filesystem can be mounted as an ext3 partition ( using " ext3 " as the filesystem type when mounting ) .
However , if the ext4 partition uses extents ( a major new feature of ext4 ) , then the ability to mount the file system as ext3 is lost .
But then again , if you 're looking at ext4 just for extents , there have been other file systems [ wikipedia.org ] that have used extents for awhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is backward compatible with ext3Not if you decide to use extents, which is a major reason why you'd want to use ext4.
Per your link:The ext3 file system is partially forward compatible with ext4, that is, an ext4 filesystem can be mounted as an ext3 partition (using "ext3" as the filesystem type when mounting).
However, if the ext4 partition uses extents (a major new feature of ext4), then the ability to mount the file system as ext3 is lost.
But then again, if you're looking at ext4 just for extents, there have been other file systems [wikipedia.org] that have used extents for awhile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151165</id>
	<title>My opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my opinion on ext4:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my opinion on ext4 :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my opinion on ext4:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28171483</id>
	<title>I have worked 18 years with UNIX. 10 with Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243886220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it does not harm to ask questions about anything here.</p><p>Sometimes you need people with relevant experience that are somehow detached from a given issue but that still can provide useful advice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it does not harm to ask questions about anything here.Sometimes you need people with relevant experience that are somehow detached from a given issue but that still can provide useful advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it does not harm to ask questions about anything here.Sometimes you need people with relevant experience that are somehow detached from a given issue but that still can provide useful advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153239</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243683480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it only can be corrupted if the computer crashes between when the file is renamed, and when the data is written to disk. If the computer doesn't crash then everything always works fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it only can be corrupted if the computer crashes between when the file is renamed , and when the data is written to disk .
If the computer does n't crash then everything always works fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it only can be corrupted if the computer crashes between when the file is renamed, and when the data is written to disk.
If the computer doesn't crash then everything always works fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153121</id>
	<title>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1243682580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems?<blockquote><div><p>"Earlier this year, the ext4 filesystem was accepted into the Linux kernel. "</p></div></blockquote><p>I love it when an ask Slashdot article has the answer to the question as the first sentence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems ?
" Earlier this year , the ext4 filesystem was accepted into the Linux kernel .
" I love it when an ask Slashdot article has the answer to the question as the first sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is ext4 Stable For Production Systems?
"Earlier this year, the ext4 filesystem was accepted into the Linux kernel.
"I love it when an ask Slashdot article has the answer to the question as the first sentence.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152643</id>
	<title>Fine since Jaunty Beta</title>
	<author>Wolfger</author>
	<datestamp>1243679640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm running KDE4 on EXT4 since March, and zero problems. Is it any better than EXT3? Not in any noticeable way. I <i>think</i> it's faster, but haven't benchmarked it. It's not the-difference-between-cable-and-dialup faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running KDE4 on EXT4 since March , and zero problems .
Is it any better than EXT3 ?
Not in any noticeable way .
I think it 's faster , but have n't benchmarked it .
It 's not the-difference-between-cable-and-dialup faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running KDE4 on EXT4 since March, and zero problems.
Is it any better than EXT3?
Not in any noticeable way.
I think it's faster, but haven't benchmarked it.
It's not the-difference-between-cable-and-dialup faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28164125</id>
	<title>no problems with it here</title>
	<author>mrdtr</author>
	<datestamp>1243790160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using it with Kubuntu since 9.04 came out, and haven't had any problems at all. Maybe I just got lucky? but I doubt it.
I regularly back up everything anyway, so I'm not too worried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using it with Kubuntu since 9.04 came out , and have n't had any problems at all .
Maybe I just got lucky ?
but I doubt it .
I regularly back up everything anyway , so I 'm not too worried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using it with Kubuntu since 9.04 came out, and haven't had any problems at all.
Maybe I just got lucky?
but I doubt it.
I regularly back up everything anyway, so I'm not too worried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150209</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're producing file undelete software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're producing file undelete software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're producing file undelete software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150409</id>
	<title>Re:Ye</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1243707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been running ext4 for / , but left ext3 for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home where any KDE apps I run could fudge writes. No problems at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been running ext4 for / , but left ext3 for /home where any KDE apps I run could fudge writes .
No problems at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been running ext4 for / , but left ext3 for /home where any KDE apps I run could fudge writes.
No problems at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151043</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1243713000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A few months later, users start discovering data corruption of KDE files. Specifically, a copy of A to A', ftruncate(A'), write(A'), rename(A' to A), host crash, causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A' data despite the well-known atomic "rename" that serves as a barrier.</p></div><p>No, it's more fucked than that. The rename has pointed A to A', but the data for A' has not been written so you have <b>NO</b> data, only a zero byte file. From a "high-level" perspective, and by high level I mean <i>I want to atomicly replace file A with A'</i> then this is clearly a major WTF but apparently not for the ext4 developers. That means there's bigger chances of ice skating contests in hell than me installing ext4 on a production server.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few months later , users start discovering data corruption of KDE files .
Specifically , a copy of A to A ' , ftruncate ( A ' ) , write ( A ' ) , rename ( A ' to A ) , host crash , causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A ' data despite the well-known atomic " rename " that serves as a barrier.No , it 's more fucked than that .
The rename has pointed A to A ' , but the data for A ' has not been written so you have NO data , only a zero byte file .
From a " high-level " perspective , and by high level I mean I want to atomicly replace file A with A ' then this is clearly a major WTF but apparently not for the ext4 developers .
That means there 's bigger chances of ice skating contests in hell than me installing ext4 on a production server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few months later, users start discovering data corruption of KDE files.
Specifically, a copy of A to A', ftruncate(A'), write(A'), rename(A' to A), host crash, causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A' data despite the well-known atomic "rename" that serves as a barrier.No, it's more fucked than that.
The rename has pointed A to A', but the data for A' has not been written so you have NO data, only a zero byte file.
From a "high-level" perspective, and by high level I mean I want to atomicly replace file A with A' then this is clearly a major WTF but apparently not for the ext4 developers.
That means there's bigger chances of ice skating contests in hell than me installing ext4 on a production server.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151533</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some days, a score of +5 Insightful just isn't enough. Extremely well written, and perfect analysis + explanation. You sir, are a hero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some days , a score of + 5 Insightful just is n't enough .
Extremely well written , and perfect analysis + explanation .
You sir , are a hero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some days, a score of +5 Insightful just isn't enough.
Extremely well written, and perfect analysis + explanation.
You sir, are a hero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150325</id>
	<title>It's a good file system.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was one of the people that spoke loudly when Ext4 caused 0-byte file corruption.</p><p>While I don't entirely agree that it's just "an application issue", because apps that work fine on every other filesystem should not need to be re-written specifically for Ext4, I am pleased at the work the devs have done to work around the problems.  The kernel patches have eradicated the issues I had with corruption, and the performance is still great.</p><p>I never did official benchmarking to determine the extent, but my perception is that there's a noticeable performance increase when using Ext4 instead of Ext3.</p><p>If I were building a production server, I may think twice and just go with Ext3... unless the app would *greatly* benefit from Ext4.  However, for a desktop system, I think Ext4 is a very good choice and ready for primetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was one of the people that spoke loudly when Ext4 caused 0-byte file corruption.While I do n't entirely agree that it 's just " an application issue " , because apps that work fine on every other filesystem should not need to be re-written specifically for Ext4 , I am pleased at the work the devs have done to work around the problems .
The kernel patches have eradicated the issues I had with corruption , and the performance is still great.I never did official benchmarking to determine the extent , but my perception is that there 's a noticeable performance increase when using Ext4 instead of Ext3.If I were building a production server , I may think twice and just go with Ext3... unless the app would * greatly * benefit from Ext4 .
However , for a desktop system , I think Ext4 is a very good choice and ready for primetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was one of the people that spoke loudly when Ext4 caused 0-byte file corruption.While I don't entirely agree that it's just "an application issue", because apps that work fine on every other filesystem should not need to be re-written specifically for Ext4, I am pleased at the work the devs have done to work around the problems.
The kernel patches have eradicated the issues I had with corruption, and the performance is still great.I never did official benchmarking to determine the extent, but my perception is that there's a noticeable performance increase when using Ext4 instead of Ext3.If I were building a production server, I may think twice and just go with Ext3... unless the app would *greatly* benefit from Ext4.
However, for a desktop system, I think Ext4 is a very good choice and ready for primetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151669</id>
	<title>Re:Risk Vs Benefits Analysis</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1243716840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What do I gain by running with ext4?</i></p><p>Barriers enabled by default. The fact that most of ext3 users are running without them is scary.</p><p>If you keep using ext3, enable them. They aren't enabled by default because they have a noticeable performance hit, but if you are paranoid about corruption, you really want them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do I gain by running with ext4 ? Barriers enabled by default .
The fact that most of ext3 users are running without them is scary.If you keep using ext3 , enable them .
They are n't enabled by default because they have a noticeable performance hit , but if you are paranoid about corruption , you really want them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do I gain by running with ext4?Barriers enabled by default.
The fact that most of ext3 users are running without them is scary.If you keep using ext3, enable them.
They aren't enabled by default because they have a noticeable performance hit, but if you are paranoid about corruption, you really want them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152693</id>
	<title>Re:Um, yes, it's called fsck.</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1243679880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ext4's fsck is faster than ext3's because it keeps track of unused areas of disk explicitly - as opposed to having to check them just in case there's something there.</p><p>It takes seconds instead of minutes, which is good enough to convince me to stop skipping it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ext4 's fsck is faster than ext3 's because it keeps track of unused areas of disk explicitly - as opposed to having to check them just in case there 's something there.It takes seconds instead of minutes , which is good enough to convince me to stop skipping it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ext4's fsck is faster than ext3's because it keeps track of unused areas of disk explicitly - as opposed to having to check them just in case there's something there.It takes seconds instead of minutes, which is good enough to convince me to stop skipping it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150515</id>
	<title>Theodore Ts'o: Don&#226;(TM)t fear the fsync!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>After reading the comments on my earlier post, Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem as well as some of the comments on the Slashdot story as well as the Ubuntu bug, it&#226;(TM)s become very clear to me that there are a lot of myths and misplaced concerns about fsync() and how best to use it.   I thought it would be appropriate to correct as many of these misunderstandings about fsync() in one comprehensive blog posting.</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/03/15/dont-fear-the-fsync/" title="thunk.org" rel="nofollow">http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/03/15/dont-fear-the-fsync/</a> [thunk.org]

</p><p>FYI, Ts'o is the ext4 maintainer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the comments on my earlier post , Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem as well as some of the comments on the Slashdot story as well as the Ubuntu bug , it   ( TM ) s become very clear to me that there are a lot of myths and misplaced concerns about fsync ( ) and how best to use it .
I thought it would be appropriate to correct as many of these misunderstandings about fsync ( ) in one comprehensive blog posting .
http : //thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/03/15/dont-fear-the-fsync/ [ thunk.org ] FYI , Ts'o is the ext4 maintainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the comments on my earlier post, Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem as well as some of the comments on the Slashdot story as well as the Ubuntu bug, itâ(TM)s become very clear to me that there are a lot of myths and misplaced concerns about fsync() and how best to use it.
I thought it would be appropriate to correct as many of these misunderstandings about fsync() in one comprehensive blog posting.
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/03/15/dont-fear-the-fsync/ [thunk.org]

FYI, Ts'o is the ext4 maintainer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151009</id>
	<title>Re:ext4 is buggy</title>
	<author>StarHeart</author>
	<datestamp>1243712640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like a problem I have had. It isn't ever time I reboot, and has gotten better with newer kernel versions. Mine is a 4tb ext4 filesystem on linux software raid5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a problem I have had .
It is n't ever time I reboot , and has gotten better with newer kernel versions .
Mine is a 4tb ext4 filesystem on linux software raid5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a problem I have had.
It isn't ever time I reboot, and has gotten better with newer kernel versions.
Mine is a 4tb ext4 filesystem on linux software raid5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only on Linux is it the user's fault that apps have data loss because the Linux kernel people changed filesystem semantics.  At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p><p>I did follow the ext4 debate.  Here's my quick synopsis.</p><ul>
<li>Linux kernel hacker discovers he can make a certain microbenchmark run 50\% faster if he allows reordering of filesystem metadata writes ahead of filesystem data writes.  Said hacker checks in code with a "now 50\% faster!!!" message.</li><li>A few months later, users start discovering data corruption of KDE files.  Specifically, a copy of A to A', ftruncate(A'), write(A'), rename(A' to A), host crash, causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A' data despite the well-known atomic "rename" that serves as a barrier.</li><li>Linux kernel hacker ignored problem as not-a-bug, since the apps didn't make use of fdatasync() / fsync() correctly, which (using Posix semantics) would have prevented data corruption.  The detail to note here is that Posix doesn't actually say that rename is a write barrier for data and metadata, even though everyone would assume that it is a write barrier and ALL other filesystems have treated it as a write barrier.  (And in my opinion as a professional systems programmer, this is an oversight in the Posix standard and not a desired behavior).  So the linux kernel hacker is technically correct but has introduced a behavior that goes against all previous implementations.</li><li>Linux kernel hacker (and some Slashdot posters) attack KDE developers for being incompetent because they didn't read a sub-sub-sub clause of the Posix spec that (1) isn't mentioned in the man pages, (2) only gets read by kernel programmers anyway, and (3) is about two orders of magnitude more arcane than the average desktop app developer will ever read documentation.</li><li>90\% of users and 80\% of programmers wonder what the hell fdatasync() and fsync() and the difference between data and metadata write barriers are, and why the default behavior is to corrupt data.</li><li>Linux kernel hacker promises to commit a few patches to fix the problem, so as not to break software that has worked perfectly fine for the past 10 years.</li><li>Those of us with experience realize that since said kernel hacker didn't believe this was a problem in the first place, the patches are as likely to be half-hearted band-aids as to actually increase data integrity guarantees.  Programming has a long and proud history of making a quick fix to satisfy "management" (in this case, the Linux community) that makes one symptom go away and doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.</li><li>We get an Ask Slashdot asking if the problem actually got fixed, because 99\% of us do not have the technical expertise to understand patches to the Linux filesystem to figure out if this actually got fixed.</li></ul><p>I do have a moral to this story.  Filesystems have one cardinal, inviolable rule.  <b>DO NOT CORRUPT THE USER'S DATA</b>.  The guarantee is that if a user makes a read, the user will get back either good data OR an error (or explicit indication of no data).  Google likes filesystems that lose data - but they don't ever give back corrupt search results.  Ext3 can reorder writes - but defaults to a safe 5-second flush rate to keep the window of unexpected corruptions small.  Ext4 ignored this rule and allows silent data corruption so that this filesystem can be the best at certain microbenchmarks, and instead of accepting responsibility, the kernel hacker in question blames everybody else.</p><p>The greatest danger to Linux's success is not Microsoft.  It's the hubris of many Linux developers, users, and advocates, who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user's problems.  (And yes, I'm a follower of the Raymond Chen philosophy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only on Linux is it the user 's fault that apps have data loss because the Linux kernel people changed filesystem semantics .
At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakes : -/I did follow the ext4 debate .
Here 's my quick synopsis .
Linux kernel hacker discovers he can make a certain microbenchmark run 50 \ % faster if he allows reordering of filesystem metadata writes ahead of filesystem data writes .
Said hacker checks in code with a " now 50 \ % faster ! ! !
" message.A few months later , users start discovering data corruption of KDE files .
Specifically , a copy of A to A ' , ftruncate ( A ' ) , write ( A ' ) , rename ( A ' to A ) , host crash , causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A ' data despite the well-known atomic " rename " that serves as a barrier.Linux kernel hacker ignored problem as not-a-bug , since the apps did n't make use of fdatasync ( ) / fsync ( ) correctly , which ( using Posix semantics ) would have prevented data corruption .
The detail to note here is that Posix does n't actually say that rename is a write barrier for data and metadata , even though everyone would assume that it is a write barrier and ALL other filesystems have treated it as a write barrier .
( And in my opinion as a professional systems programmer , this is an oversight in the Posix standard and not a desired behavior ) .
So the linux kernel hacker is technically correct but has introduced a behavior that goes against all previous implementations.Linux kernel hacker ( and some Slashdot posters ) attack KDE developers for being incompetent because they did n't read a sub-sub-sub clause of the Posix spec that ( 1 ) is n't mentioned in the man pages , ( 2 ) only gets read by kernel programmers anyway , and ( 3 ) is about two orders of magnitude more arcane than the average desktop app developer will ever read documentation.90 \ % of users and 80 \ % of programmers wonder what the hell fdatasync ( ) and fsync ( ) and the difference between data and metadata write barriers are , and why the default behavior is to corrupt data.Linux kernel hacker promises to commit a few patches to fix the problem , so as not to break software that has worked perfectly fine for the past 10 years.Those of us with experience realize that since said kernel hacker did n't believe this was a problem in the first place , the patches are as likely to be half-hearted band-aids as to actually increase data integrity guarantees .
Programming has a long and proud history of making a quick fix to satisfy " management " ( in this case , the Linux community ) that makes one symptom go away and does n't actually fix the underlying problem.We get an Ask Slashdot asking if the problem actually got fixed , because 99 \ % of us do not have the technical expertise to understand patches to the Linux filesystem to figure out if this actually got fixed.I do have a moral to this story .
Filesystems have one cardinal , inviolable rule .
DO NOT CORRUPT THE USER 'S DATA .
The guarantee is that if a user makes a read , the user will get back either good data OR an error ( or explicit indication of no data ) .
Google likes filesystems that lose data - but they do n't ever give back corrupt search results .
Ext3 can reorder writes - but defaults to a safe 5-second flush rate to keep the window of unexpected corruptions small .
Ext4 ignored this rule and allows silent data corruption so that this filesystem can be the best at certain microbenchmarks , and instead of accepting responsibility , the kernel hacker in question blames everybody else.The greatest danger to Linux 's success is not Microsoft .
It 's the hubris of many Linux developers , users , and advocates , who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user 's problems .
( And yes , I 'm a follower of the Raymond Chen philosophy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only on Linux is it the user's fault that apps have data loss because the Linux kernel people changed filesystem semantics.
At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakes :-/I did follow the ext4 debate.
Here's my quick synopsis.
Linux kernel hacker discovers he can make a certain microbenchmark run 50\% faster if he allows reordering of filesystem metadata writes ahead of filesystem data writes.
Said hacker checks in code with a "now 50\% faster!!!
" message.A few months later, users start discovering data corruption of KDE files.
Specifically, a copy of A to A', ftruncate(A'), write(A'), rename(A' to A), host crash, causes the resulting file to contain A data and not A' data despite the well-known atomic "rename" that serves as a barrier.Linux kernel hacker ignored problem as not-a-bug, since the apps didn't make use of fdatasync() / fsync() correctly, which (using Posix semantics) would have prevented data corruption.
The detail to note here is that Posix doesn't actually say that rename is a write barrier for data and metadata, even though everyone would assume that it is a write barrier and ALL other filesystems have treated it as a write barrier.
(And in my opinion as a professional systems programmer, this is an oversight in the Posix standard and not a desired behavior).
So the linux kernel hacker is technically correct but has introduced a behavior that goes against all previous implementations.Linux kernel hacker (and some Slashdot posters) attack KDE developers for being incompetent because they didn't read a sub-sub-sub clause of the Posix spec that (1) isn't mentioned in the man pages, (2) only gets read by kernel programmers anyway, and (3) is about two orders of magnitude more arcane than the average desktop app developer will ever read documentation.90\% of users and 80\% of programmers wonder what the hell fdatasync() and fsync() and the difference between data and metadata write barriers are, and why the default behavior is to corrupt data.Linux kernel hacker promises to commit a few patches to fix the problem, so as not to break software that has worked perfectly fine for the past 10 years.Those of us with experience realize that since said kernel hacker didn't believe this was a problem in the first place, the patches are as likely to be half-hearted band-aids as to actually increase data integrity guarantees.
Programming has a long and proud history of making a quick fix to satisfy "management" (in this case, the Linux community) that makes one symptom go away and doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.We get an Ask Slashdot asking if the problem actually got fixed, because 99\% of us do not have the technical expertise to understand patches to the Linux filesystem to figure out if this actually got fixed.I do have a moral to this story.
Filesystems have one cardinal, inviolable rule.
DO NOT CORRUPT THE USER'S DATA.
The guarantee is that if a user makes a read, the user will get back either good data OR an error (or explicit indication of no data).
Google likes filesystems that lose data - but they don't ever give back corrupt search results.
Ext3 can reorder writes - but defaults to a safe 5-second flush rate to keep the window of unexpected corruptions small.
Ext4 ignored this rule and allows silent data corruption so that this filesystem can be the best at certain microbenchmarks, and instead of accepting responsibility, the kernel hacker in question blames everybody else.The greatest danger to Linux's success is not Microsoft.
It's the hubris of many Linux developers, users, and advocates, who are too busy disavowing responsibility and blaming everybody else to fix real user's problems.
(And yes, I'm a follower of the Raymond Chen philosophy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150295</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We avoid anything that has less than 24 months of wide deployment unless there is some absolute pressing need to move to an unstable/untested product.</p><p>We have test and development systems where we run latest and greatest, but generally they are used in sync with the existing system.  We don't switch over until we're damn sure there aren't any unforeseen consequences.  That typically means 12 months without any major hiccups and 3 months without minor ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We avoid anything that has less than 24 months of wide deployment unless there is some absolute pressing need to move to an unstable/untested product.We have test and development systems where we run latest and greatest , but generally they are used in sync with the existing system .
We do n't switch over until we 're damn sure there are n't any unforeseen consequences .
That typically means 12 months without any major hiccups and 3 months without minor ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We avoid anything that has less than 24 months of wide deployment unless there is some absolute pressing need to move to an unstable/untested product.We have test and development systems where we run latest and greatest, but generally they are used in sync with the existing system.
We don't switch over until we're damn sure there aren't any unforeseen consequences.
That typically means 12 months without any major hiccups and 3 months without minor ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28169735</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's "safe enough"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243878240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is why those of use that used to do md5 sums on our files now run ZFS. Have the file system take care of any data corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why those of use that used to do md5 sums on our files now run ZFS .
Have the file system take care of any data corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why those of use that used to do md5 sums on our files now run ZFS.
Have the file system take care of any data corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151013</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243712700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, "fixing" apps to work around ext4's brokenness means you have to fsync the new version of a file before renaming it over the old one. So instead of having KDE's 500 config files being lazily flushed to disk in a single 10-millisecond disk write, each one gets written synchronously, hanging your system for 5 whole seconds. Brilliant.</p><p>Or, I could just use ext3, which gives sane behavior (preserving either the old or new version of a file, don't care which) and <b>doesn't</b> require apps to be written in a way that makes you feel like you're running DOS on floppy disks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , " fixing " apps to work around ext4 's brokenness means you have to fsync the new version of a file before renaming it over the old one .
So instead of having KDE 's 500 config files being lazily flushed to disk in a single 10-millisecond disk write , each one gets written synchronously , hanging your system for 5 whole seconds .
Brilliant.Or , I could just use ext3 , which gives sane behavior ( preserving either the old or new version of a file , do n't care which ) and does n't require apps to be written in a way that makes you feel like you 're running DOS on floppy disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, "fixing" apps to work around ext4's brokenness means you have to fsync the new version of a file before renaming it over the old one.
So instead of having KDE's 500 config files being lazily flushed to disk in a single 10-millisecond disk write, each one gets written synchronously, hanging your system for 5 whole seconds.
Brilliant.Or, I could just use ext3, which gives sane behavior (preserving either the old or new version of a file, don't care which) and doesn't require apps to be written in a way that makes you feel like you're running DOS on floppy disks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150627</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1243709160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hmm i think most of them are but im still having problems with <b>mv</b>, seriosuly can we stop this bullshit, ext4 was clearly not working!<br>If you cant rename a fucking file without risking total corruption of the file, at no point in renaming "settings-new" to "settings" should the file "settings" become unusable, What the fuck CAN kde4 do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hmm i think most of them are but im still having problems with mv , seriosuly can we stop this bullshit , ext4 was clearly not working ! If you cant rename a fucking file without risking total corruption of the file , at no point in renaming " settings-new " to " settings " should the file " settings " become unusable , What the fuck CAN kde4 do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmm i think most of them are but im still having problems with mv, seriosuly can we stop this bullshit, ext4 was clearly not working!If you cant rename a fucking file without risking total corruption of the file, at no point in renaming "settings-new" to "settings" should the file "settings" become unusable, What the fuck CAN kde4 do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150663</id>
	<title>"*^\%&#194;&pound;*(!^&amp;*T"49!</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1243709580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im running ext4 too but as you can the content of my posts is fine!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im running ext4 too but as you can the content of my posts is fine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im running ext4 too but as you can the content of my posts is fine!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28156857</id>
	<title>Re:We had this problem</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1243767240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Six months...</p><p>Clearly you do not value your data. Perhaps six years might be a better idea. In the mean time there are at least two well supported extent based file systems for Linux that have a proven history of over six years that support file systems larger than 8TB. Namely XFS and JFS, pick one and go with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Six months...Clearly you do not value your data .
Perhaps six years might be a better idea .
In the mean time there are at least two well supported extent based file systems for Linux that have a proven history of over six years that support file systems larger than 8TB .
Namely XFS and JFS , pick one and go with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Six months...Clearly you do not value your data.
Perhaps six years might be a better idea.
In the mean time there are at least two well supported extent based file systems for Linux that have a proven history of over six years that support file systems larger than 8TB.
Namely XFS and JFS, pick one and go with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151115</id>
	<title>Not touching it for at least 12 months</title>
	<author>wdef</author>
	<datestamp>1243713480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Filesystems are mission critical for everything.
Stabilility is the thing here.

Personally, I see no reason to risk this until they iron out all the wrinkles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Filesystems are mission critical for everything .
Stabilility is the thing here .
Personally , I see no reason to risk this until they iron out all the wrinkles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filesystems are mission critical for everything.
Stabilility is the thing here.
Personally, I see no reason to risk this until they iron out all the wrinkles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152319</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1243677840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unlike Microsoft who takes all responsibility from any malfunction in its softw--Oh that's right the EULA crowd never does.</p></div></blockquote><p>To quote the GNU General Public License, Version 3 (emphasis mine):<br>
<br>
<i>15. Disclaimer of Warranty.<br>
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" <strong>WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND</strong>, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, <strong>THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU</strong>. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.<br>
<br>
16. Limitation of Liability.<br>
<strong>IN NO EVENT</strong> UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING <strong>WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER</strong>, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, <strong>BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES</strong>, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES <strong>ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM</strong> (<strong>INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE</strong> OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</i> <br>
<br>
BSD contains similar language. Face it: Most of F/OSS, including the Linux kernel, explicitly denies any responsibility for the software working properly - or even for the software not overwriting your root partition with random data. Virtually all end-user software is distributed on a "maybe this will possibly work" basis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike Microsoft who takes all responsibility from any malfunction in its softw--Oh that 's right the EULA crowd never does.To quote the GNU General Public License , Version 3 ( emphasis mine ) : 15 .
Disclaimer of Warranty .
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM , TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW .
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM " AS IS " WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND , EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED , INCLUDING , BUT NOT LIMITED TO , THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE .
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU .
SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE , YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING , REPAIR OR CORRECTION .
16. Limitation of Liability .
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER , OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE , BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES , INCLUDING ANY GENERAL , SPECIAL , INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM ( INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS ) , EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES .
BSD contains similar language .
Face it : Most of F/OSS , including the Linux kernel , explicitly denies any responsibility for the software working properly - or even for the software not overwriting your root partition with random data .
Virtually all end-user software is distributed on a " maybe this will possibly work " basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike Microsoft who takes all responsibility from any malfunction in its softw--Oh that's right the EULA crowd never does.To quote the GNU General Public License, Version 3 (emphasis mine):

15.
Disclaimer of Warranty.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.
SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
BSD contains similar language.
Face it: Most of F/OSS, including the Linux kernel, explicitly denies any responsibility for the software working properly - or even for the software not overwriting your root partition with random data.
Virtually all end-user software is distributed on a "maybe this will possibly work" basis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152463</id>
	<title>ext4 / KDE issues overblown</title>
	<author>mpyne</author>
	<datestamp>1243678500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comments on this thread seem to be a bit mistaken on average on what the hubbub was regarding ext4 and KDE, so I'll try to clear it up a bit (I'm a KDE dev but I'm not speaking for KDE here of course).</p><p>The "issue" with ext4 was that it's handling of the standard write(); close(); rename(); idiom for replacing existing files by writing out a new file and then renaming it in-place over the old one could leave zero-length files laying around <em> <b>if the system crashed</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr></em>.</p><p>ext4 <em>never</em> would spontaneously delete data merely because rename() was used, it was a side effect of its implementation that if the system crashed before the data had been written to disk but after the rename had taken effect then a zero-length file would be left in its place after restarting the system.</p><p>Where KDE comes into the picture is that KDE 4 writes its updated settings to disk too frequently (which is a known bug, now fixed, KDE <a href="https://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=187172" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">bug 187172 pertains</a> [kde.org]).  So, if you were starting up or shutting down your KDE session when the system crashed you'd likely have had quite a few config files written out in the past 60 seconds or so.  ext4 is very good about writing out metadata so the renames would have taken effect.  But apparently ext4 didn't force the actual file data to disk until 60 seconds had gone by (unless asked to via fsync()).  So after the reboot there was a great chance that the $KDEHOME/share/config/*rc files had been effectively truncated, thus causing loss of settings.</p><p>Many people have complained that KDE should do "the right thing" and use fsync() everywhere, but most people don't know that KDE had always done that... until ext3 became popular.  ext3 suffers massive slowdown in the face of fsync() (although I guess some kernel hackers will have that mostly fixed in 2.6.30?) so KDE actually <em>removed</em> fsync() calls in response to user demand.  And there's no less than two fsyncs() that would be required, one to force the file to disk, and a second to force the update to the directory after the rename().</p><p>People claim that KDE violates POSIX standards but really the effect we get from using rename() with fsync() is exactly what we want, a kind of lazy "version A or version B, one or the other".  At least for rc files, it is not at all important that version B be reflected system wide afterwards at the time the write() happens so fsync() is overkill.  Of course ext4 isn't "violating" POSIX either, but most agree that its behavior was undesirable in this situation, so patches have been committed to ensure ext4 adds ordering in this case to ensure that metadata updates happen after data updates.</p><p>I actually just converted all my filesystems to ext4 (from XFS) the other day, since it's at least possible with appropriate mount flags to get ext4 to act as a proper desktop FS.  (I didn't know about XFS's similar issues with power loss until it was too late).  So far everything is working nicely for me, although I haven't intentionally power cycled to test that case either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comments on this thread seem to be a bit mistaken on average on what the hubbub was regarding ext4 and KDE , so I 'll try to clear it up a bit ( I 'm a KDE dev but I 'm not speaking for KDE here of course ) .The " issue " with ext4 was that it 's handling of the standard write ( ) ; close ( ) ; rename ( ) ; idiom for replacing existing files by writing out a new file and then renaming it in-place over the old one could leave zero-length files laying around if the system crashed .ext4 never would spontaneously delete data merely because rename ( ) was used , it was a side effect of its implementation that if the system crashed before the data had been written to disk but after the rename had taken effect then a zero-length file would be left in its place after restarting the system.Where KDE comes into the picture is that KDE 4 writes its updated settings to disk too frequently ( which is a known bug , now fixed , KDE bug 187172 pertains [ kde.org ] ) .
So , if you were starting up or shutting down your KDE session when the system crashed you 'd likely have had quite a few config files written out in the past 60 seconds or so .
ext4 is very good about writing out metadata so the renames would have taken effect .
But apparently ext4 did n't force the actual file data to disk until 60 seconds had gone by ( unless asked to via fsync ( ) ) .
So after the reboot there was a great chance that the $ KDEHOME/share/config/ * rc files had been effectively truncated , thus causing loss of settings.Many people have complained that KDE should do " the right thing " and use fsync ( ) everywhere , but most people do n't know that KDE had always done that... until ext3 became popular .
ext3 suffers massive slowdown in the face of fsync ( ) ( although I guess some kernel hackers will have that mostly fixed in 2.6.30 ?
) so KDE actually removed fsync ( ) calls in response to user demand .
And there 's no less than two fsyncs ( ) that would be required , one to force the file to disk , and a second to force the update to the directory after the rename ( ) .People claim that KDE violates POSIX standards but really the effect we get from using rename ( ) with fsync ( ) is exactly what we want , a kind of lazy " version A or version B , one or the other " .
At least for rc files , it is not at all important that version B be reflected system wide afterwards at the time the write ( ) happens so fsync ( ) is overkill .
Of course ext4 is n't " violating " POSIX either , but most agree that its behavior was undesirable in this situation , so patches have been committed to ensure ext4 adds ordering in this case to ensure that metadata updates happen after data updates.I actually just converted all my filesystems to ext4 ( from XFS ) the other day , since it 's at least possible with appropriate mount flags to get ext4 to act as a proper desktop FS .
( I did n't know about XFS 's similar issues with power loss until it was too late ) .
So far everything is working nicely for me , although I have n't intentionally power cycled to test that case either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comments on this thread seem to be a bit mistaken on average on what the hubbub was regarding ext4 and KDE, so I'll try to clear it up a bit (I'm a KDE dev but I'm not speaking for KDE here of course).The "issue" with ext4 was that it's handling of the standard write(); close(); rename(); idiom for replacing existing files by writing out a new file and then renaming it in-place over the old one could leave zero-length files laying around  if the system crashed .ext4 never would spontaneously delete data merely because rename() was used, it was a side effect of its implementation that if the system crashed before the data had been written to disk but after the rename had taken effect then a zero-length file would be left in its place after restarting the system.Where KDE comes into the picture is that KDE 4 writes its updated settings to disk too frequently (which is a known bug, now fixed, KDE bug 187172 pertains [kde.org]).
So, if you were starting up or shutting down your KDE session when the system crashed you'd likely have had quite a few config files written out in the past 60 seconds or so.
ext4 is very good about writing out metadata so the renames would have taken effect.
But apparently ext4 didn't force the actual file data to disk until 60 seconds had gone by (unless asked to via fsync()).
So after the reboot there was a great chance that the $KDEHOME/share/config/*rc files had been effectively truncated, thus causing loss of settings.Many people have complained that KDE should do "the right thing" and use fsync() everywhere, but most people don't know that KDE had always done that... until ext3 became popular.
ext3 suffers massive slowdown in the face of fsync() (although I guess some kernel hackers will have that mostly fixed in 2.6.30?
) so KDE actually removed fsync() calls in response to user demand.
And there's no less than two fsyncs() that would be required, one to force the file to disk, and a second to force the update to the directory after the rename().People claim that KDE violates POSIX standards but really the effect we get from using rename() with fsync() is exactly what we want, a kind of lazy "version A or version B, one or the other".
At least for rc files, it is not at all important that version B be reflected system wide afterwards at the time the write() happens so fsync() is overkill.
Of course ext4 isn't "violating" POSIX either, but most agree that its behavior was undesirable in this situation, so patches have been committed to ensure ext4 adds ordering in this case to ensure that metadata updates happen after data updates.I actually just converted all my filesystems to ext4 (from XFS) the other day, since it's at least possible with appropriate mount flags to get ext4 to act as a proper desktop FS.
(I didn't know about XFS's similar issues with power loss until it was too late).
So far everything is working nicely for me, although I haven't intentionally power cycled to test that case either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28156973</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong question</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1243768980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Come on, no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default,...</i></p><p>No current Ubuntu release of any sort (LTS or not) uses ext4 by default. The next release (9.10, Karmic Koala) *may* default to ext4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default,...No current Ubuntu release of any sort ( LTS or not ) uses ext4 by default .
The next release ( 9.10 , Karmic Koala ) * may * default to ext4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default,...No current Ubuntu release of any sort (LTS or not) uses ext4 by default.
The next release (9.10, Karmic Koala) *may* default to ext4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150181</id>
	<title>Probably not (yet)</title>
	<author>jamesmorlock</author>
	<datestamp>1243705320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would just wait until it becomes main stream and all the issues are worked out, until then I'll stick with ext3</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would just wait until it becomes main stream and all the issues are worked out , until then I 'll stick with ext3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would just wait until it becomes main stream and all the issues are worked out, until then I'll stick with ext3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28169735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28154763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28156857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28156973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28171483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28154979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_161233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28154763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28169735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28171483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28155693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28159273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28157127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28154979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151533
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150905
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28152319
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28156973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28153647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_161233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28150563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28156857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_161233.28151009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
