On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 08:44 -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Marc wrote: > > The best part for simplicity is the RAID functionality is completely > > transparent to the server. It's running ReiserFS just like it were on a > > single drive, and could do the same with any file system. It just sees > > it as one device. > > ReiserFS...eating your data 6 drives at a time ;)
Now this just asks for a flamewar ... so I'll just state what I've seen. Not that it has to be representative, looks like everyone triggers different bugs :-) ext3: crap. dies under load. corrupts slowly but thoroughly. 800G partition was unmountable before all data was copied in. Runs quite well if load is low, but under high load it tends to die horribly. xfs: fast. very fast. so fast that it forgets directories. Not funny when /etc/ just disappears every second mount. When /home/ disappeared I asked xfs to leave and not return until it behaves. reiser4: slower than reiser3, and anecdotal evidence points to a low durability (dies after ~72h) reiser3: fast. reliable. when it dies it just blows up, no agony or doubts there. I haven't had a reiser3 problem since 2000, so I declare it the winner of my endurance tests ;-) (the problems I had were pure hardware defects - VIA was very generous in making my data "dynamic") Now these are just my experiences. If you've had different filesystem crashes I won't say you're wrong, just that I've decided for me that reiser3 is better than the others (at least on x86) -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
