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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 ;)
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
