Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:17:33 +0200 Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some | journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 | (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). If you care about your data, use ext3. I second that. Or if you have lots of backups and don't care about your data, you could always setup a multi-disk RAID-0 on Reiser4 ;-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Mark Knecht wrote: On my 3 1394 drives I get about 18MB/S, 24MB/S and 24MB/S. The 18MB/S drive is the oldest (and smallest at 40GB) of the three. Cool, thanks for the info. I just realized that the only sensible configuration is to move my 3.5 backup drives to the 1394, because my laptop only has the unpowered 4-pin mini-connector. Since I have to have AC power for the backup drives anyway, they are the logical choice for that bus. OK, so I'll bite. If you don't actually read all three disks then how do you know they all contain the same data? I'm concerned that there could be a time when data is written and it's corrupted due to problems in the 1394 sub system. I assume for now that these corruptions are random and do not happen on all three cables. How do I guard against that? The md (aka RAID) driver uses it's own on-disk 'format' to store configuration information (like the UUID of the raid array, what element this device is in the array, a timestamp of when it was last seen, etc) and also to track which drive has the freshest data. If the array is not in degraded mode, it optimizes reading for speed, since each disk is supposed to contain the same data. If it is in degraded mode, then it needs to check which disk has the freshest data, and returns that. Of course, it should also by resyncing the array, so that each drive gets updated with the right data. Obviously, an array resync can take a very long time, so you really want to use a journalled filesystem because you do *not* want to wait for an fsck and an array resync to run simultaneously. I know the drives themselves are good as I've used them all under Windows for quite a long time with no lost data ever. (Yea FAT32!) ;-) However I have lost data once already under Linux using ext3. The system said it was moving a 1GB file, however it finsihed with no error messages in 1 second and while there was a file icon on the target drive the system said the file was corrupted and couldn't read it. Well, from what I know, the md driver pretty much assumes that either the data it sent over the cable made it to the disk, or that the disk/controller noticed something wrong and signalled an error. I doubt RAID1 will help you with silently disappearing data. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Jarry wrote: I'm counting votes, and waiting for some final decision to come. I can not contribute to this discussion, because I have absolutely no experience with journaling filesystems at all. That's why I asked... Up to now I'm more confused than before posting my question. Anyway thanks to all who replied. I would summarize it this way: If high performance appeals to you, give reiserfs a try. If full data journaling (instead of just meta-data) appeals to you, go with ext3, but read up on the tuning options available. I should note that for some very specific workloads, full data journaling with ext3 will be faster than reiserfs. I would ignore the arguments about x filesystem corrupted my data, and y never has. Personally, I had filesystem corruption with reiserfs back in '99 or so. It interacted badly with the VM in a few of the 2.4 kernel series. In another case, I had faulty hardware. But data corruption is not widespread for any of (xfs, reiserfs, ext3, jfs) with current and properly configured kernels and working (especially not overclocked) hardware. Pick one and use it. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Hi! I beg to differ. If high performance appeals to you, give ReiserFS OR XFS a try - since all benchmarks on this subjects show a more or less significant difference dealing with a large number of big vs. small files. I also don't quite understand the suggestion to ignore arguments about data corruption. These weren't arguments but simple facts. A lot of posters here experienced various troubles with almost every FS there is. That doesn't proof that any of the discussed filesystems is BAD - but it does proof that - excuse my english - shit happens and you might lose data regardless of the FS you went for. A 100% bulletproof FS simply seem not to exist. When I had to decide the FS issue myself my questions hovered over things like - performance / benchmarks - journaling quality - recovery tools - compatibility (parted issues, non-linux OS drivers and so forth) - FS overhead - etc. etc. Regards spox Am Dienstag, den 19.04.2005, 08:16 +0200 schrieb Richard Fish: Jarry wrote: I'm counting votes, and waiting for some final decision to come. I can not contribute to this discussion, because I have absolutely no experience with journaling filesystems at all. That's why I asked... Up to now I'm more confused than before posting my question. Anyway thanks to all who replied. I would summarize it this way: If high performance appeals to you, give reiserfs a try. If full data journaling (instead of just meta-data) appeals to you, go with ext3, but read up on the tuning options available. I should note that for some very specific workloads, full data journaling with ext3 will be faster than reiserfs. I would ignore the arguments about x filesystem corrupted my data, and y never has. Personally, I had filesystem corruption with reiserfs back in '99 or so. It interacted badly with the VM in a few of the 2.4 kernel series. In another case, I had faulty hardware. But data corruption is not widespread for any of (xfs, reiserfs, ext3, jfs) with current and properly configured kernels and working (especially not overclocked) hardware. Pick one and use it. -Richard -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Heinz Sporn SPORN it-freelancing Mobile: ++43 (0)699 / 127 827 07 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: Steyrer Str. 20 A-4540 Bad Hall Austria / Europe -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Heinz Sporn wrote: I also don't quite understand the suggestion to ignore arguments about data corruption. These weren't arguments but simple facts. A lot of posters here experienced various troubles with almost every FS there is. That doesn't proof that any of the discussed filesystems is BAD - but it does proof that - excuse my english - shit happens and you might lose data regardless of the FS you went for. A 100% bulletproof FS simply seem not to exist. That was *exactly* my point. Even though you can find examples of corruption with all filesystems, it is still a fairly rare occurrence in the real world, at least with the ones we have been discussing. ( To be precise, I should have said 'filesystem corruption', not data corruptionanything that just journals meta-data has a fair chance of losing/corrupting some data in a crash...it is the filesystem structures that journaling is meant to protect in that case). So, since (paraphrasing your statement above), individual instances of filesystem corruption should not be proof of a poor filesystem design, then arguments to avoid a particular filesystem based solely on an instance of corruption should be ignored. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Mark Knecht wrote: Hi, Is there anything that can be said about which FS might be more reliable if using some form of RAID? I don't know much about RAID yet but I'm starting to consider it for some of my setup here. Disks are getting very cheap. 1394/USB2.0 hot plugable devices sound good to me. I use 1394 already for audio recording under Linux. So, what about RAID. About even with all FS's? AFAICT, yes. I use software RAID0 on my laptop, previously with XFS, now with reiserfs. No ill effects to be reported. Are you meaning to use something like RAID1 with the USB/1394 disks? RAID0 seems kind of pointless to me in that configuration, because the bandwidth of the USB2.0/1394 bus will really be your limiting factor with any typical hard disk today. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
A. Khattri wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Richard Fish wrote: power failure better than XFS from this test, but a complete power failure on a laptop is trivially easy to avoid...just don't remove the battery! Heck, one of the rubber feet on the bottom of my laptop is I suppose batteries never run out in your world view. Don't be silly...of course they do. That's why I run klaptop to monitor the status of my battery and give me warnings when it is getting low in the rather frequent event when I forget to plug in the power. My point wasn't that a laptop will run forever on batteries, it was that the battery will last a hell of lot longer than it takes shutdown -h now to run. Even if your battery is completely useless otherwise, you almost always have enough time to save your work and shutdown the system. Ok, so one might counter what if someone isn't monitoring the laptop, and the battery runs out. The same argument could be made about using XFS in a data center environment...you don't want to do that, because the UPS batteries could die, or the generator could run out of fuel. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
That was exactly my reasoning behind selecting XFS as the main filesystem for my Laptop (IBM ThinkPad T41p), which I use as my everyday desktop/workstation. Previously, in an IBM ThinkPad A31p I used Reiserfs, and I never had any problems, the thing ran really well, I just wanted to try XFS because a bloke (that seems to know a lot about Linux) told me that it was very good. I guess time will tell... Regards, -AR On 4/19/05, Richard Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A. Khattri wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Richard Fish wrote: power failure better than XFS from this test, but a complete power failure on a laptop is trivially easy to avoid...just don't remove the battery! Heck, one of the rubber feet on the bottom of my laptop is I suppose batteries never run out in your world view. Don't be silly...of course they do. That's why I run klaptop to monitor the status of my battery and give me warnings when it is getting low in the rather frequent event when I forget to plug in the power. My point wasn't that a laptop will run forever on batteries, it was that the battery will last a hell of lot longer than it takes shutdown -h now to run. Even if your battery is completely useless otherwise, you almost always have enough time to save your work and shutdown the system. Ok, so one might counter what if someone isn't monitoring the laptop, and the battery runs out. The same argument could be made about using XFS in a data center environment...you don't want to do that, because the UPS batteries could die, or the generator could run out of fuel. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Mark Knecht wrote: I need to learn the RAID levels, but what I mean is I think what's called mirroring. Yep, thats RAID1. Forgive me, I've been married to my laptop for too long, and I forget that 'normal' computers can have multiple 1394/USB controllers! In that configuration, yes, you should be able to get some decent bandwidth. If/when you do try this, please report the results. I am using USB2.0 disks for my backups right now, but my bandwidth is limited to 20MB/sec total. Since one of the disks I backup is also a USB2.0 disk, my effective bandwidth is about 10MB/sec for much of my backup (transfer from USB2.0 disk to memory, memory to other USB disk). I also have a 1394 port that I am not using for anything right now, and I know that if I moved one or the other to that bus, I could get some more speed. But I am not sure which one to move, because I don't know whether it is faster or slower than the 20MB/sec maximum that I get now. Two or more drives with identical data for redundancy. In my case I have three 1394 controllers in the same machine. I was considering putting identical drives on each cable in parallel so the 1394 bandwidth is essentically trippled and the same data is written and read to all drives. Seems to me the only overhead is then 3x disk bandwidth across the PCI bus as well as the verification that all 3 drives return the same data. I am pretty sure that when reading data, the kernel's software RAID treats the the array the same as RAID0..that is it would read all 3 disks simultaneously, but different blocks from each, to maximize throughput. If the array is 'clean', and all 3 disks contain the same data, there is no point in reading the same data from all 3 drives. Write performance suffers slightly with RAID1, because you basically have to wait for the slowest disk. Even if they are all the same speed, there is always one that lags a few ms because the platters are not synchronized. For the filesystem, I say choose your favorite. Just remember that 3 copies of the same mistake doesn't help you much...you still need backups! -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On 4/19/05, Richard Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: I need to learn the RAID levels, but what I mean is I think what's called mirroring. Yep, thats RAID1. Forgive me, I've been married to my laptop for too long, and I forget that 'normal' computers can have multiple 1394/USB controllers! In that configuration, yes, you should be able to get some decent bandwidth. If/when you do try this, please report the results. I am using USB2.0 disks for my backups right now, but my bandwidth is limited to 20MB/sec total. Since one of the disks I backup is also a USB2.0 disk, my effective bandwidth is about 10MB/sec for much of my backup (transfer from USB2.0 disk to memory, memory to other USB disk). I also have a 1394 port that I am not using for anything right now, and I know that if I moved one or the other to that bus, I could get some more speed. But I am not sure which one to move, because I don't know whether it is faster or slower than the 20MB/sec maximum that I get now. On my 3 1394 drives I get about 18MB/S, 24MB/S and 24MB/S. The 18MB/S drive is the oldest (and smallest at 40GB) of the three. 1394 bandwidth is currently limited by lack of gap count optimization in the drivers. Just playing around I've been able to get about 35MB/S from one of my drives but the problem is the settings won't tick and it eventually drops back down to the numbers above. If you were interested in trying it there is a small programm called 1394commander that has a few commands that allow setting gap count and getting faster settings, at least until a 1394 bus reset comes along. However for doing backups it may be worth it. Two or more drives with identical data for redundancy. In my case I have three 1394 controllers in the same machine. I was considering putting identical drives on each cable in parallel so the 1394 bandwidth is essentically trippled and the same data is written and read to all drives. Seems to me the only overhead is then 3x disk bandwidth across the PCI bus as well as the verification that all 3 drives return the same data. I am pretty sure that when reading data, the kernel's software RAID treats the the array the same as RAID0..that is it would read all 3 disks simultaneously, but different blocks from each, to maximize throughput. If the array is 'clean', and all 3 disks contain the same data, there is no point in reading the same data from all 3 drives. OK, so I'll bite. If you don't actually read all three disks then how do you know they all contain the same data? I'm concerned that there could be a time when data is written and it's corrupted due to problems in the 1394 sub system. I assume for now that these corruptions are random and do not happen on all three cables. How do I guard against that? I know the drives themselves are good as I've used them all under Windows for quite a long time with no lost data ever. (Yea FAT32!) ;-) However I have lost data once already under Linux using ext3. The system said it was moving a 1GB file, however it finsihed with no error messages in 1 second and while there was a file icon on the target drive the system said the file was corrupted and couldn't read it. Write performance suffers slightly with RAID1, because you basically have to wait for the slowest disk. Even if they are all the same speed, there is always one that lags a few ms because the platters are not synchronized. Makes sense. For the filesystem, I say choose your favorite. Just remember that 3 copies of the same mistake doesn't help you much...you still need backups! Yep! Always. Thanks, Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:17:33 +0200 Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some | journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 | (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). If you care about your data, use ext3. Amen. -- Hilsen Harald. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Hi, I also couldn't resist to answer :-) the choice of the right FS tends to be some kind of religion... ??? But we use gentoo and we decide on facts. Didn't we? :-) The gentoo-father Daniel Robbins gives us a brief introduction to the differnt FSs. See http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/articles.xml - Advanced filesystem implementer's guide. There you can learn that ext3 is the only one with true data-journaling. That it was not reiser's fault that causes problems (data lose) in kernel 2.4.x-2.4.1y. And hopefully many more... Sascha. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Hello, I have had experience with reiserfs in the past (When I used to use Slackware) And I never had any problems with it. Currently I am using XFS on a laptop and so far so good (I has only been 4 months). XFS seems to be very, very fast. IMHO you cannot go wrong with either reiserfs or XFS. HTH -AR On 4/17/05, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm installing Gentoo 2005.0 using universal installation CD on a small, general purpose server (apache+mysql+php, mail, some net-games, teamspeak, ftp, shells, 20-30 users, etc.). Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). But even after reading of 2005.0-handbook, I have no idea which fs could be best for me. I tried to find some comparisons, but results are ambiguous. Could you give me some recommendation? I'd like to hear opinions especially from those who have personal experience with various fs... Thanks, Jarry -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Pavel wrote: Since I put Gentoo on my workstation (2 years ago ) , never had segfaults with reiser3fs ;) I prefer ***CENSURED*** for my /usr/portage , reiserfs for my /usr,/var,/boot,/home and XFS for my isos and music ssshhh don't ever mind at that file system if ciaranm is around ;) -- No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it. ~ Charles M. Schulz But sometimes run fast is better ~ Francesco R. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:52:55 -0400, A. R. wrote: Currently I am using XFS on a laptop and so far so good (I has only been 4 months). XFS seems to be very, very fast. XFS is probably a poor choice for a laptop, as it is the most likely to suffer data loss in the event of a power failure. I ran it on my laptop, and it was fast, but since everything as synced from the desktop, and the battery was so fscked I had to run from mains anyway, I took the risk. -- Neil Bothwick Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Hi! If it's anything worth let me share my FS experiences. As a home user I tried EXT2/3, XFS and Reiser. Switched completly from EXT3 to XFS a couple of months ago for better performance. Survived a power fail without a single problem. In the contrary I failed two times running Reiser 3.6. In both cases the system ran fine for a couple of days and than kaboom! Turned my machine on in the morning and the Reiser partition was gone - without any change to recover. No logs - no nothing. For my business clients I strictly use EXT2/3 without any trouble for 2 years now. I really don't think there is a killer argument for or against a specfic FS. In theory they all have their strengths and weaknesses but in real life you have to make your own mistakes I guess ;-) Regards spox Am Montag, den 18.04.2005, 16:23 + schrieb Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales: Strange how Jarry is quiet about all this... Anyway, I've been using reiser for a long time, I had a small server for some things of mine (CVS, Apache, etc) running with it. It survived some intense eletrical storms and it didn't lose data for the 6 months it was up (Processor fried, so I had to shut it down ;) ). I kinda avoid ext(2|3) for pure prejudice. Don't have anything to complain about them, but when I migrated from Mandrake, I left behind everything that had anything to do with RPM distros*. Since they use ext3 as default FS, I changed that too. Since I got used to reiser, I never got back. So, basically, ext(2|3) are good and reliable, but, in my experience, so is reiserfs, and reiser is faster. Never used XFS, but from the previous comments, it seems to be very good in a very controlled enviroment (power backups, independent generator, no-breaks, etc) and for large files. It is a matter of compromise. What is the main purpose of your server? * - Don't ask me why, just started hating the damn thing... -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Heinz Sporn SPORN it-freelancing Mobile: ++43 (0)699 / 127 827 07 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: Steyrer Str. 20 A-4540 Bad Hall Austria / Europe -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: I kinda avoid ext(2|3) for pure prejudice. Don't have anything to complain about them, but when I migrated from Mandrake, I left behind everything that had anything to do with RPM distros*. Since they use ext3 as default FS, I changed that too. ALL Linux distros can use ext3 as it is the official Linux file-system. The fact that a distro uses RPM instead of some other package manager has absolutely nothing to do with it... -- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Huh? I have never ever had any power failures with my laptops, if the thing is connected to the power outlet and this one fails, well, the battery at least gives me a chance to gracefully shut down the computer. Maybe I made a newbie choice, but so far, no problems yet. Regards, -AR On 4/18/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:52:55 -0400, A. R. wrote: Currently I am using XFS on a laptop and so far so good (I has only been 4 months). XFS seems to be very, very fast. XFS is probably a poor choice for a laptop, as it is the most likely to suffer data loss in the event of a power failure. I ran it on my laptop, and it was fast, but since everything as synced from the desktop, and the battery was so fscked I had to run from mains anyway, I took the risk. -- Neil Bothwick Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
I think you didn't got my point. I'm not saying that other distros can't use ext3. I just got mad with having to chase RPM dependencies and started hating RPM distros. The fact that they (Mandrake, RedHat, Fedora, Conectiva, etc) use ext3 as default made me hate ext3 too. I know now that it was a bad reason for changing to another filesystem, but I'm satisfied with ReiserFS and, unless it lets me down really bad in the near future, I don't intend to change fs again. ;) As I said before, I have no real complaints about ext3. :) 2005/4/18, A. Khattri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: I kinda avoid ext(2|3) for pure prejudice. Don't have anything to complain about them, but when I migrated from Mandrake, I left behind everything that had anything to do with RPM distros*. Since they use ext3 as default FS, I changed that too. ALL Linux distros can use ext3 as it is the official Linux file-system. The fact that a distro uses RPM instead of some other package manager has absolutely nothing to do with it... -- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: Strange how Jarry is quiet about all this... I'm counting votes, and waiting for some final decision to come. I can not contribute to this discussion, because I have absolutely no experience with journaling filesystems at all. That's why I asked... Up to now I'm more confused than before posting my question. Anyway thanks to all who replied. Jarry -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Sometimes that happens, too much information. If I had to make a decision, in your case, I'd use ext3. Everyone said it was stable, reliable. All the others show some cases of failure. Maybe you can put two test volume with reiserfs and xfs with data that is not really significant and benchmark, test for data corruption, etc. You can't go wrong with ext3. ;) 2005/4/18, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: Strange how Jarry is quiet about all this... I'm counting votes, and waiting for some final decision to come. I can not contribute to this discussion, because I have absolutely no experience with journaling filesystems at all. That's why I asked... Up to now I'm more confused than before posting my question. Anyway thanks to all who replied. Jarry -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 08:00:00PM +0200, Jarry wrote: Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: Strange how Jarry is quiet about all this... I'm counting votes, and waiting for some final decision to come. I can not contribute to this discussion, because I have absolutely no experience with journaling filesystems at all. That's why I asked... Up to now I'm more confused than before posting my question. Anyway thanks to all who replied. you posted a standard flamewar question. fortunately it hasn't degerated into that. :) look at how much support (paid development and debugging) there are behind things: redhat supports ext3 commercially. suse supports reiserfs commercially. sgi supports xfs commercially. ibm presumably supports jfs commercially. who are the largest linux players of those? redhat and suse. what markets do sgi and ibm target? the large machine data center (read: their fses probably don't get so much testing an a laptop suspend/resume/power loss/non-ecc memory/crash setup). my own experience? i've used all of ext2, ext3, xfs, and reiserfs all on both laptops and servers. currently i'm using reiserfs on my home media server and ext3 on a laptop. my laptop needs a reinstall thanks to dell support. what will i choose? ext3 or reiser on a coin toss. regardless of what you choose, prove any fs to yourself before depending on it. install with it and run a burn-in doing lots of random io with reads and checksum verification later for a few days. pull the plug several times during this and see what happens. any filesystem is only as good as the particular implementation(s) that you choose to let write to your disk. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
I beg to differ, as I posted previously I gave up on ext2/3 because of lost data - not everyone agrees that ext2/3 is the best fallback! Better performance with reiserfs3 as well as peace of mind goes against ext2/3 for me. As I said - YMMV - I have looked at my usage, number and type of failures for both systems some time back and reiserfs3 came up tops for me. You need to do the same: run both systems and see what is best for your environment. I will move to reiserfs4 when there is some consensus it it is getting stable as it has some nice features I like, as well as the performance potential. Unfortunately, asking which FS is best is one of those questions that falls into the same class as how long is a piece of string. Do the sums yourself as everybody's experience is different. BillK On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 15:19 -0300, Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: Sometimes that happens, too much information. If I had to make a decision, in your case, I'd use ext3. Everyone said it was stable, reliable. All the others show some cases of failure. Maybe you can put two test volume with reiserfs and xfs with data that is not really significant and benchmark, test for data corruption, etc. You can't go wrong with ext3. ;) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Monday 18 April 2005 01:34 pm, A. R. wrote: Huh? I have never ever had any power failures with my laptops, if the thing is connected to the power outlet and this one fails, well, the battery at least gives me a chance to gracefully shut down the computer. One of the methods I used to test ext3 was just that... I removed the battery, plugged the laptop into a local outlet... booted it and started a number of various processes... when things looked real good and busy, I pulled the plug... BAM! Dead Plug it back into the outlet and reboot... The filesystem check would take like a second or two and It's back in business. I have yet to get a corrupted ext3 partition, even when doing that non-sense. I tried that exactly once with xfs... Upon boot up it was hosed beyond recovery... -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004 Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00! 9:26pm up 10 days, 4:33, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
The one EXTREME test that I witnessed was during a Panasonic ToughBook demo. The presenter gave a 15 minute speech, pool side at a hotel, about how good and tough the new Panasonic ToughBook really was. All during the speech, he would slide a ToughBook off a desk onto the concrete apron at the hotel pool. The laptop took, probably, 10 or 15 trips to the concrete during the speech. Most of us in the crowd just about laughed our asses off... No way would this thing survive. At the end of the speech, he took the laptop off the floor for the last time, walked over to the pool and gave it a good washing and rinse in the pool. After the splash, he opened it up and... it was runnig just fine... no worse fort wear That was something I'll never forget seeing... On Monday 18 April 2005 10:02 pm, Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: You know, you just got me an idea for a website: Extreme Benchmarks ;) We'll, cut the power, set it on fire, throw it out the window and see which machines recover and perform best under the circumstances. lol ;) P.S.: Just joking, but it could be a good TV show As for the real topic of this thread, seems like no real conclusion. Everyone has their loved FS and this discussion got nowhere really fast. So, my final sugestion on this, get one of those RPG dices, with 20 faces, make a table with all the 20 major FSes and whatever the dice lands on, install it. I think you're better off that way. As a professor of mine used to say, make a decision, it is the right or the wrong decision, only time will tell. Not making a decision that is the real big mistake. So pick any fs, and learn it is problems (googleit) and be prepared for them. That is the best you can do. 2005/4/19, Jerry McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Monday 18 April 2005 01:34 pm, A. R. wrote: Huh? I have never ever had any power failures with my laptops, if the thing is connected to the power outlet and this one fails, well, the battery at least gives me a chance to gracefully shut down the computer. One of the methods I used to test ext3 was just that... I removed the battery, plugged the laptop into a local outlet... booted it and started a number of various processes... when things looked real good and busy, I pulled the plug... BAM! Dead Plug it back into the outlet and reboot... The filesystem check would take like a second or two and It's back in business. I have yet to get a corrupted ext3 partition, even when doing that non-sense. I tried that exactly once with xfs... Upon boot up it was hosed beyond recovery... -- * * Registered Linux User Number 185956 FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004 Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00! 9:26pm up 10 days, 4:33, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004 Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00! 10:59pm up 10 days, 6:06, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
heh ! So far I remember his April joke ;) Anyway I`ll stay with reiserfs till first data loss .. Real men make backups On 4/18/05, Bastian Balthazar Bux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pavel wrote: Since I put Gentoo on my workstation (2 years ago ) ,never had segfaults with reiser3fs ;) I prefer ***CENSURED*** for my /usr/portage , reiserfs for my /usr,/var,/boot,/home and XFS for my isos and musicssshhh don't ever mind at that file system if ciaranm is around ;) --No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it.~ Charles M. SchulzBut sometimes run fast is better~ Francesco R.--gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Jerry McBride wrote: One of the methods I used to test ext3 was just that... I removed the battery, plugged the laptop into a local outlet... booted it and started a number of various processes... when things looked real good and busy, I pulled the plug... BAM! Dead Plug it back into the outlet and reboot... The filesystem check would take like a second or two and It's back in business. Jerry, Well, that is certainly a tough test of a journaled filesystem! But I'm not convinced that your conclusion that XFS is useless for laptops is a valid one. You _could_ reasonably conclude that ext3 handles complete power failure better than XFS from this test, but a complete power failure on a laptop is trivially easy to avoid...just don't remove the battery! Heck, one of the rubber feet on the bottom of my laptop is attached to the battery, so trying to use it without a battery makes it really wobbly and uncomfortable. Really, how many laptop users would even think to use their laptop without the battery?? In every case, leaving the battery in is a better decision, because of the automatic UPS feature. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Hi, I'm installing Gentoo 2005.0 using universal installation CD on a small, general purpose server (apache+mysql+php, mail, some net-games, teamspeak, ftp, shells, 20-30 users, etc.). Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). But even after reading of 2005.0-handbook, I have no idea which fs could be best for me. I tried to find some comparisons, but results are ambiguous. Could you give me some recommendation? I'd like to hear opinions especially from those who have personal experience with various fs... Thanks, Jarry -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 18:17 +0200, Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm installing Gentoo 2005.0 using universal installation CD on a small, general purpose server (apache+mysql+php, mail, some net-games, teamspeak, ftp, shells, 20-30 users, etc.). Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). But even after reading of 2005.0-handbook, I have no idea which fs could be best for me. I tried to find some comparisons, but results are ambiguous. Could you give me some recommendation? I'd like to hear opinions especially from those who have personal experience with various fs... Thanks, Jarry I have experience with all of them, and after 7 years my personal pick is reiserfs 3.6. I've persnonally had problems with almost any other filesystem. My experience covers home and work. I'd like to point out that XFS was designed with datacenter use in mind, and that right there assumes you have a very good battery backup. That is to say you aren't going to lose power. XFS caches very agressively in RAM, meaning if you lose power, you lose that data. So stay away from XFS unless you have great power backup. Now you'll probably have somebody say the exact opposite of me, such is the topic of filesystems. Just my advice. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Alle 18:17, domenica 17 aprile 2005, Jarry ha scritto: Hi, I'm installing Gentoo 2005.0 using universal installation CD on a small, general purpose server (apache+mysql+php, mail, some net-games, teamspeak, ftp, shells, 20-30 users, etc.). Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). But even after reading of 2005.0-handbook, I have no idea which fs could be best for me. I tried to find some comparisons, but results are ambiguous. Could you give me some recommendation? I'd like to hear opinions especially from those who have personal experience with various fs... Thanks, Jarry If you have big partitions, I can suggest you xfs that can use big files and big partitions without problems (and it's very fast!) Luigi -- Public key GPG(0x073A0960) on http://keyserver.linux.it/ pgpG0tOUb8L8X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm installing Gentoo 2005.0 using universal installation CD on a small, general purpose server (apache+mysql+php, mail, some net-games, teamspeak, ftp, shells, 20-30 users, etc.). Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). But even after reading of 2005.0-handbook, I have no idea which fs could be best for me. I tried to find some comparisons, but results are ambiguous. Could you give me some recommendation? I'd like to hear opinions especially from those who have personal experience with various fs... Thanks, Jarry Hi, I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to file systems, but I can give my recommendations. Surely though, you'll get better ones from more qualified people out there :) Anyways, I've had experiences with ext3, ReiserFS and XFS. I prefer XFS for volumes where I have all the ISOs and stuff.. basically large files. Ext3 on basically everyother volume except /boot. I used to have ReiserFS, but somehow the performance usually started going down after a few weeks... dunno why. Having said that, we have power failures fairly regularly and Ext3 has been rocksolid after a power failure... always. Anyways, I can see fire-eyes recommending ReiserFS there... Well, like he/she said, its a matter of personal opinion. HTH, Mrugesh Karnik -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Richard Fish wrote: I also recommend reiserfs. I'm a laptop user, and just converted my filesystems from xfs to reiserfs for performance reasons. With xfs, backing up my root filesystem (325000-35 files) would take a bit over 10 minutes usually. With reiserfs, that time is down to 6-7 minutes. It just can't be beat (IMO) for handling lots and lots of small files. In terms of reliability (I manage servers for a living ;-), I have never had any problems with ext2/ext3 - it is rock solid even after crashes. I too tried out Reiserfs on my laptop and after one crash it blew away a file I was editing at the time (it turned into binary mush). However, I have used ReiserFS on an older, slower (Pentium III) server at home without any problems so far. As far as XFS goes (I have it on an old SGI server), it has great performance (this is on a web server serving many many sites) but since the server is in a data center with backup UPS and generators it is a good choice for that situation. Overall, I would say it depends on the machine, its location and what uses the machine will be put to. -- Aj. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Sun, April 17, 2005 6:21 pm, Ciaran McCreesh said: If you care about your data, use ext3. If you care about your data, use tar. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Sunday 17 April 2005 12:21 pm, A. Khattri wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Richard Fish wrote: I also recommend reiserfs. I'm a laptop user, and just converted my filesystems from xfs to reiserfs for performance reasons. With xfs, backing up my root filesystem (325000-35 files) would take a bit over 10 minutes usually. With reiserfs, that time is down to 6-7 minutes. It just can't be beat (IMO) for handling lots and lots of small files. In terms of reliability (I manage servers for a living ;-), I have never had any problems with ext2/ext3 - it is rock solid even after crashes. I'll backup what you just said about ext2/ext3. I use it extensively on servers. It's easy to setup and very robust. For those of you waiving the slow poke flag, you should have a look at something other than a default ext3 installation. -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004 Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00! 1:51pm up 8 days, 20:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Hi, On Sunday 17 April 2005 18:17, Jarry wrote: Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). for /boot (shouldn't be too big. 20mb is way enough for /boot) ext2 is good. Everything else is pure overkill and a waste of space. For the rest reiserfs or ext3 should fit your needs. I am longtime reiserfs user, so my view might be biased, but I prefer reiserfs. XFS has a habit of replacing 'damaged' files with zeros, after a crash. This is a 'security' feature, so one users data will not accidentally end in the data of another user, but it can damage your system very badly. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Hi, On Sunday 17 April 2005 18:17, Jarry wrote: Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap). for /boot (shouldn't be too big. 20mb is way enough for /boot) ext2 is good. Everything else is pure overkill and a waste of space. agree, use ext2 but with 20Mb you have space only for three 2.6 kernels, maybe 50 Mb is better For the rest reiserfs or ext3 should fit your needs. I am longtime reiserfs user, so my view might be biased, but I prefer reiserfs. agree again, totally, why to use 400 Mb for /usr/portage when you can have it in 120 Mb ? Reiser 4 is a hole for the moment but reiser 3 has demonstrated to be robust for non extreme usage. XFS has a habit of replacing 'damaged' files with zeros, after a crash. This is a 'security' feature, so one users data will not accidentally end in the data of another user, but it can damage your system very badly. -- No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it. ~ Charles M. Schulz But sometimes run fast is better ~ Francesco R. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On 4/17/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:17:33 +0200 Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:| Up to now I always used ext2, but now I want to try some| journaling fs for my 2x160GB ata-disks, fully in raid1 | (partitions: / /boot /var /tmp /usr /opt /home and swap).If you care about your data, use ext3. Ditto. I've had several very inconvenient data losses on servers with ReiserFS volumes. -- ciao,cj
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:21:14 +0200 Bastian Balthazar Bux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | agree, use ext2 but with 20Mb you have space only for three 2.6 | kernels, maybe 50 Mb is better What, are these turn absolutely everything to Y kernels? Three compressed kernels in twenty megs leads to kernels which're so big they won't even boot. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpWp2nWwtiNa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:21:14 +0200 Bastian Balthazar Bux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | agree, use ext2 but with 20Mb you have space only for three 2.6 | kernels, maybe 50 Mb is better What, are these turn absolutely everything to Y kernels? Three compressed kernels in twenty megs leads to kernels which're so big they won't even boot. web boot # du -k * 133 Kerntypes-2.4.21-144-athlon 901 System.map 620 System.map-2.4.21-144-athlon 787 System.map-2.6.8.1-mm3 901 System.map-2.6.9-gentoo-r4 1 backup_mbr 0 boot 29 config 53 config-2.4.21-144-athlon 28 config-2.6.8.1-mm3 29 config-2.6.9-gentoo-r4 951 grub 973 initrd-2.4.21-144-athlon 849 initrd-2.6.8.1-mm3 1372initrd-2.6.9-gentoo-r4 2008kernel-2.6.9-gentoo-r4 12 lost+found 80 memtest.bin 1409vmlinux-2.4.21-144-athlon.gz 0 vmlinuz 1189vmlinuz-2.4.21-144-athlon 2008vmlinuz-2.6.8.1-mm3 2008vmlinuz-2.6.9-gentoo-r4 web boot # du -sh 16M . zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -v is not set | grep -v ^# \ | grep -v ^$ CONFIG_X86=y CONFIG_MMU=y CONFIG_UID16=y CONFIG_GENERIC_ISA_DMA=y CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP=y CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y CONFIG_CLEAN_COMPILE=y CONFIG_BROKEN_ON_SMP=y CONFIG_LOCALVERSION= CONFIG_SWAP=y CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y CONFIG_SYSCTL=y CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT=14 CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y CONFIG_IKCONFIG=y CONFIG_IKCONFIG_PROC=y CONFIG_KALLSYMS=y CONFIG_FUTEX=y CONFIG_EPOLL=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_NOOP=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_AS=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE=y CONFIG_IOSCHED_CFQ=y CONFIG_SHMEM=y CONFIG_MODULES=y CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=y CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD=y CONFIG_OBSOLETE_MODPARM=y CONFIG_KMOD=y CONFIG_X86_PC=y CONFIG_MK7=y CONFIG_X86_CMPXCHG=y CONFIG_X86_XADD=y CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT=6 CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM=y CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK=y CONFIG_X86_INVLPG=y CONFIG_X86_BSWAP=y CONFIG_X86_POPAD_OK=y CONFIG_X86_GOOD_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_INTEL_USERCOPY=y CONFIG_X86_USE_PPRO_CHECKSUM=y CONFIG_X86_USE_3DNOW=y CONFIG_HPET_TIMER=y CONFIG_HPET_EMULATE_RTC=y CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_TSC=y CONFIG_X86_MCE=y CONFIG_X86_MCE_NONFATAL=y CONFIG_X86_MCE_P4THERMAL=y CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM=y CONFIG_MTRR=y CONFIG_REGPARM=y CONFIG_PM=y CONFIG_ACPI=y CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT=y CONFIG_ACPI_INTERPRETER=y CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP_PROC_FS=y CONFIG_ACPI_AC=y CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY=y CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=y CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=y CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=y CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=y CONFIG_ACPI_BLACKLIST_YEAR=0 CONFIG_ACPI_BUS=y CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y CONFIG_ACPI_PCI=y CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y CONFIG_APM=y CONFIG_PCI=y CONFIG_PCI_GOANY=y CONFIG_PCI_BIOS=y CONFIG_PCI_DIRECT=y CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG=y CONFIG_PCI_LEGACY_PROC=y CONFIG_PCI_NAMES=y CONFIG_PCMCIA=y CONFIG_YENTA=y CONFIG_CARDBUS=y CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC=y CONFIG_STANDALONE=y CONFIG_PREVENT_FIRMWARE_BUILD=y CONFIG_FW_LOADER=m CONFIG_PARPORT=m CONFIG_PARPORT_PC=m CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_CML1=m CONFIG_PARPORT_SERIAL=m CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_SUPERIO=y CONFIG_PARPORT_1284=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_FD=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CRYPTOLOOP=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE=8192 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD=y CONFIG_LBD=y CONFIG_IDE=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDISK=y CONFIG_IDEDISK_MULTI_MODE=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECD=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDESCSI=y CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL=y CONFIG_IDE_TASKFILE_IO=y CONFIG_IDE_GENERIC=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_CMD640=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEPCI=y CONFIG_IDEPCI_SHARE_IRQ=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_GENERIC=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RZ1000=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_PCI=y CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_AUTO=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_AEC62XX=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ALI15X3=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_AMD74XX=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HPT34X=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HPT366=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PIIX=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC202XX_OLD=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC202XX_NEW=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SIS5513=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SLC90E66=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_TRM290=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_VIA82CXXX=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA=y CONFIG_IDEDMA_AUTO=y CONFIG_SCSI=y CONFIG_SCSI_PROC_FS=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD=y CONFIG_CHR_DEV_ST=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SR=y CONFIG_CHR_DEV_SG=y CONFIG_SCSI_SPI_ATTRS=m CONFIG_SCSI_AACRAID=m CONFIG_SCSI_AIC7XXX=m CONFIG_AIC7XXX_CMDS_PER_DEVICE=32 CONFIG_AIC7XXX_RESET_DELAY_MS=15000 CONFIG_AIC7XXX_DEBUG_ENABLE=y CONFIG_AIC7XXX_DEBUG_MASK=0 CONFIG_AIC7XXX_REG_PRETTY_PRINT=y CONFIG_SCSI_AIC7XXX_OLD=m CONFIG_SCSI_AIC79XX=m CONFIG_AIC79XX_CMDS_PER_DEVICE=32 CONFIG_AIC79XX_RESET_DELAY_MS=15000 CONFIG_AIC79XX_DEBUG_ENABLE=y CONFIG_AIC79XX_DEBUG_MASK=0 CONFIG_AIC79XX_REG_PRETTY_PRINT=y CONFIG_SCSI_SATA=y CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SVW=m CONFIG_SCSI_ATA_PIIX=m CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_PROMISE=m CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_SIL=m CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA=m CONFIG_SCSI_BUSLOGIC=m CONFIG_SCSI_DMX3191D=y CONFIG_SCSI_EATA=m CONFIG_SCSI_EATA_MAX_TAGS=16 CONFIG_SCSI_EATA_PIO=m CONFIG_SCSI_FUTURE_DOMAIN=m CONFIG_SCSI_GDTH=m CONFIG_SCSI_IPS=m CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX_2=m CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX_DMA_ADDRESSING_MODE=1 CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX_DEFAULT_TAGS=16 CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX_MAX_TAGS=64 CONFIG_SCSI_QLA2XXX=y
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
A case of YMMV I'm afraid I will not touch ext2/3 again except for /boot (because its simple and does not seem to have problems - as long as you leave it unmounted that is - live and learn!) as it is the only file system I regularly lost files on (a laptop that would crash every couple of weeks due to hardware/suspend to ram etc issues), and whole filesystems (40G files + OS at christmas for instance. reiserfs isnt perfect, some years back I lost a few minor files (this is not counting hardware failure where I have experience that reiserfs handles failing/failed disks far better than ext2/3 - important when you want to get the data off! Others seem to have good things to say about ext 2/3 though, so its a case of try it and see how it works for you. BillK On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 23:47 +0530, Mrugesh Karnik wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Hi, -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: which FS (ext3,reiserfs,xfs,jfs)?
Ext3 has yet to give me a single problem in the 2+ years that I've been using it (since my first GNU/Linux adventures on RH9). ReiserFS, on the other hand, was continually misbehaving (segfaults, floating point exceptions, journal replay errors, etc.) both times I tried to use it for a Stage1 Gentoo install (the second time just using it for /usr/portage and /var/tmp/portage). I've not any experience with other filesystems so I can't knowledgably comment on them, but I very highly recommend ext3. For what it's worth, I've posted a few tips[1] on Gentoo's DTT forum to help you improve reliablity and performance on an ext3 filesystem. [1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-305871.html On a related but off-topic note: Thank you for your hard work Stephen Tweedie and others! =D -- () The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email, /\ vCards, and proprietary formats. --- Peter A. Gordon (codergeek42) E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Public Key ID: 0x109DBECE GPG Key Fingerprint (SHA1): E485 E2F7 11CE F9B2 E3D9 C95D 208F B732 109D BECE Encrypted and/or Signed correspondence preffered. Notice: This message not is not GPG-signed, because it is sent through a webmail interface. --- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
