Oliver Schad wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 schrieb mir Edward Muller:
reiserfs, purely from the recovery angle.
Yeah, if you have fuck up in the B-Trees, it's the best filesystem purely from
the rubbish heap's angle.
regards
Oli
Oli is correct. If reiser dies, the data is completely lost. It writes
to the journal first, then writes the data. That, and when it decides to
completely kill your B-Trees, you're screwed. After three unrecoverable
reiserfs issues, I moved over to ext3 and have been very happy.
I personally think the speed differences on most production servers is
negligible. At the end of the day, I'd much rather have my data intact
than have it be X% faster in certain situations. Also, ext3 has quite a
few configuration options to optimize for your particular needs. See
/etc/mke2fs.conf for some example configurations. The main problem
you'll have with ext3 is that you cannot change to things like the block
size or number of inodes on-the-fly like you can with xfs. So make sure
what you format with will suit your needs. The one other major strength
of ext3 is that it is able to change to ext2 or ext4 without
reformatting the partition. You cannot do this with reiser or any of the
others. reiserfs3 is not compatible with reiserfs4 for example.
And I've got to think that the NTFS comment was entirely sarcasm.
Wendall
--
[email protected] mailing list
