On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 13:12, Collins Richey wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 02:33:17 +0100, Marc Ballarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > In my experience the need for recovery tools is much smaller with > > ReiserFS. Internal journal replay seems to be very reliable compared to > > ext3. This might depend on specific hardware, though. > > > > Regards > > > > BTW: On broken hardware (power regulation), three reiserfs filesystems - > > two of them heavily used - survived ~100 hard crashes without any > > unexpected loss of data or any inconsistencies. In every case journal > > replay worked flawlessly, reiserfschk was never needed. > > My experiences with ext3 - and especially XFS - are much worse. (To be > > honest, XFS suffered from an actual bug, not a design issue. Some pages > > *never* got flushed to disk before umount. This has been fixed a while ago.) > > > > That's encouraging to hear. > > My only 3 experiences with reiserfs (1x late 2.4, 2x on 2.6, never > again in this lifetime) led to total fs corruption after a powerfail. > The recovery tools failed as well. Maybe there's hope with reiserfs > 4.
I may be mis-informed or due to bad luck, but I've had reiserfs crashed on me like 5 times already when I was using it under Feedora core2. I blamed it on using swsuspend. But it would seem I didnt learn my lesson. I'm still running gentoo off reiserfs. :-) > I've been running xfs now for 6 months or more, and I've encountered > no problems there. XFS has been my main /home for many moons. It's been like 1+ years using XFS. Through the multiple reiserfs crashes, XFS seems to have stayed sane. -- Ow Mun Heng Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! Neuromancer 13:13:59 up 4:15, 6 users, load average: 1.19, 0.91, 0.65 -- [email protected] mailing list
