On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, The awesome and feared Collins Richey commented thusly,
> I can't disagree with much of what you have to say, but my experience > (and I've read numerous other reports) with reiserfs has been less than > sterling. When it fails, it fails big time, i.e. not just a few > files, but loss of fs. Yes I am in agreement with you, one failing that I notice is tht he reiserfs recovery tools arent that good. Sometimes I think that they reiser team focuss more on adding features to the fs rathen than focussing on the recoverability of the fs. > Most of my respondents on another mailing list wouldn't use anything > except XFS. I'm waiting for stability on 2.6. There are a lot of > XFS patches going into 2.6 as we speak. I too use XFS and I havent had any problems whatsoever, its performance has been incredibl fast and reliable. Several times the power went when the machine was writing to disk but the recovery was excellent. I personnaly have no complaint against XFS. > My recommendation for ext3 was not based on performance, just on years > of rock-solid, error free operation. ext3 may be somewhat slow, but > I've never lost any data with ext3. But what I notice is that when the power goes and you run a fsck you tend to have a lot of errors (missing inodes etc) on the ext3 partition, and then you have to run ext3 manually to correct the errors. I have two machines one running XFS and the other running ext3 and I tend to notice that the ext3 one tends to give lot of errors when fscked after a power failure. Grendel. -- Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
