Re: recommending reiserfs?

[Samuel Flory <sflory rackable com>]

Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am Di, den 27.04.2004 schrieb Stefanescu Vlad um 21:19:
>
>
> > Hi. Got a question for all you gurus out there ! :)
> > I came upon this filesystem (new to me), which is said by many to be 
> > more effective that ext3.
> > It is said to have an internal arborescent system which is supposed to 
> > improve disk performance.
> > From hands-on experience... is that true?
> > Thanks in advance...
> >
> > Vlad,
>
>
> In addition to what Steven replied, many people reported data loss using
> reiserfs in the past. The reiserfs maintenance tools often make a crash
> situation and recovering even worse. Well, if the man developer (Hans
> Reiser) himself states that over all speed is above data
> security/integrity as a development goal ... What will you expect then?
> I once lost data and never touched reiserfs again, sharing this
> experience with many others.
>
> YMMV


  Strange as my experince is the exact reverse.  I find reiserfs to be 
far more robust than ext3.  It certainly seems to deal with powering off 
on ide systems better than ext3.  I use to dread blowing a fuse on a 
rack with 80+ ide systems under heavy io load.  Reiserfs rarely requires 
an fsck in such cases, while ext3 does on a 1/4 of the systems.

  My only issues with reiserf is that the fedora developement 2.6 
kernels keep breaking reiserfs support in one way or another.  Also be 
aware that a number of linux distros use reiserfs as their default fs. 
Suse, Lindows, Gentoo and Xandros come to mind as prime examples.


--
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory rackable com>