Can I get rid of “ext4-rsv-conversion†process?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
uname -a gives:
Linux devuan 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1 (2018-04-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux
All filesystems on all disks in this box are ext3 (~15T worth over six disks)
ps -A gives:
...
14684 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc1-8
14685 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14688 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc2-8
14689 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14692 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc3-8
14693 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14696 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd1-8
14697 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14700 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd2-8
14701 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14704 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd3-8
14705 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14708 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd4-8
14709 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14712 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdf1-8
14713 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
...
Googling doesn't find explanation for "ext4-rsv-conver" to exist, especially since all I use are ext3.
Why does this exist here, is it really needed & can I get rid of it?
linux ext4 ext3
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
uname -a gives:
Linux devuan 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1 (2018-04-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux
All filesystems on all disks in this box are ext3 (~15T worth over six disks)
ps -A gives:
...
14684 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc1-8
14685 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14688 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc2-8
14689 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14692 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc3-8
14693 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14696 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd1-8
14697 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14700 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd2-8
14701 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14704 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd3-8
14705 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14708 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd4-8
14709 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14712 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdf1-8
14713 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
...
Googling doesn't find explanation for "ext4-rsv-conver" to exist, especially since all I use are ext3.
Why does this exist here, is it really needed & can I get rid of it?
linux ext4 ext3
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
Related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463210/…
– Thomas
yesterday
@Thomas: yea, I saw that but that and the links unfortunately gives me no info
– slashmais
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
uname -a gives:
Linux devuan 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1 (2018-04-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux
All filesystems on all disks in this box are ext3 (~15T worth over six disks)
ps -A gives:
...
14684 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc1-8
14685 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14688 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc2-8
14689 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14692 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc3-8
14693 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14696 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd1-8
14697 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14700 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd2-8
14701 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14704 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd3-8
14705 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14708 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd4-8
14709 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14712 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdf1-8
14713 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
...
Googling doesn't find explanation for "ext4-rsv-conver" to exist, especially since all I use are ext3.
Why does this exist here, is it really needed & can I get rid of it?
linux ext4 ext3
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
uname -a gives:
Linux devuan 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1 (2018-04-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux
All filesystems on all disks in this box are ext3 (~15T worth over six disks)
ps -A gives:
...
14684 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc1-8
14685 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14688 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc2-8
14689 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14692 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdc3-8
14693 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14696 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd1-8
14697 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14700 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd2-8
14701 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14704 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd3-8
14705 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14708 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdd4-8
14709 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
14712 ? 00:00:00 jbd2/sdf1-8
14713 ? 00:00:00 ext4-rsv-conver
...
Googling doesn't find explanation for "ext4-rsv-conver" to exist, especially since all I use are ext3.
Why does this exist here, is it really needed & can I get rid of it?
linux ext4 ext3
linux ext4 ext3
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
asked yesterday
slashmais
2641214
2641214
Related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463210/…
– Thomas
yesterday
@Thomas: yea, I saw that but that and the links unfortunately gives me no info
– slashmais
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463210/…
– Thomas
yesterday
@Thomas: yea, I saw that but that and the links unfortunately gives me no info
– slashmais
yesterday
Related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463210/…
– Thomas
yesterday
Related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463210/…
– Thomas
yesterday
@Thomas: yea, I saw that but that and the links unfortunately gives me no info
– slashmais
yesterday
@Thomas: yea, I saw that but that and the links unfortunately gives me no info
– slashmais
yesterday
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Since version 4.3 of the kernel, Ext3 file systems are handled by the Ext4 driver. That driver uses workqueues named ext4-rsv-conversion, one per file system; there is no way to get rid of them.
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Since version 4.3 of the kernel, Ext3 file systems are handled by the Ext4 driver. That driver uses workqueues named ext4-rsv-conversion, one per file system; there is no way to get rid of them.
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Since version 4.3 of the kernel, Ext3 file systems are handled by the Ext4 driver. That driver uses workqueues named ext4-rsv-conversion, one per file system; there is no way to get rid of them.
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Since version 4.3 of the kernel, Ext3 file systems are handled by the Ext4 driver. That driver uses workqueues named ext4-rsv-conversion, one per file system; there is no way to get rid of them.
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
Since version 4.3 of the kernel, Ext3 file systems are handled by the Ext4 driver. That driver uses workqueues named ext4-rsv-conversion, one per file system; there is no way to get rid of them.
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
answered yesterday
Stephen Kitt
149k23332398
149k23332398
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
add a comment |Â
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
thx. I've been holding on to ext3 until 4 is proven safe: has the jury come back yet? I see in the 'Related'-section questions re corruption, less disk-space => rsync-problem, ... Would it be worth it? is a mixed 3 & 4 ok? since ext4-driver is used for 3 does that mean ext3 is doomed?
– slashmais
16 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
Ext4 has been considered stable enough for general use for ten years, and the Ext3 driver was removed three years ago. The on-disk format isn’t going away any time soon; Ext2 is still supported... A mixed setup is perfectly OK.
– Stephen Kitt
15 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473752%2fcan-i-get-rid-of-ext4-rsv-conversion-process%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463210/…
– Thomas
yesterday
@Thomas: yea, I saw that but that and the links unfortunately gives me no info
– slashmais
yesterday