On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:26:12 -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: >Yes but since these are production machines in a lab that requires >clearance I can't share. We keep backups around for all these machines >since every now and then we lose one for no good reason. In contrast >the windows and openbsd machines we have deployed do not share this >behavior. > >You are the one making bold statements based on a non representative >sample. > >production server != home computing != desktop > >On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 05:31:11PM +0100, RedShift wrote: >> Marco Peereboom wrote: >> >If you like losing data ext3 and reiserfs work just fine. I manage to >> >lose Linux installations pretty often by doing crazy things like >> >rebooting. >> > <snip rest of long thread we have all read>
Here is a quote from Theodore Tso (http://thunk.org/tytso/ for bio) a few months back in kerneltrap: <quote> The fact that reiserfs uses a single B-tree to store all of its data means that very entertaining things can happen if you lose a sector containing a high-level node in the tree. It's even more entertaining if you have image files (like initrd files) in reiserfs format stored in reiserfs, and you run the recovery program on the filesystem..... Yes, I know that reiserfs4 is alleged to fix this problem, but as far as I know it is still using a single unitary tree, with all of the pitfalls that this entails. Now, that being said, that by itself is not a reason not to decide not to include reseirfs4 into the mainline sources. (I might privately get amused when system administrators use reiserfs and then report massive data loss, but that's my own failure of chairty; I'm working on it.) For the technical reasons why resierfs4 hasn't been integrated, please see the mailing list archives. </quote> Enough said? I think that backs up Marco pretty well, given that Tso is a Linux kernel dev since '91. I used to be an IBM Linux instructor until a few years ago and we always warned about Reiser FS being too bleedin' edgy. Seems it hasn't matured yet..... >From the land "down under": Australia. Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over?
