Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Again, this is a lame excuse for a bug. First you declare some features on >>your filesystem, later, when it turns out that it isn't being delivered, >>you act as if this were a known condition. >> > Well this is true, you are right. Reiser4 is the fix though.
No, it isn't. Reiser4 is an alternative beast. Or will it transparently "fix" the collision problem in a 3.5 or 3.6 file system, in a way that is backwards compatible with 3.6 drivers? If not, please fix reiser3.6. Given that Reiser4 isn't "proven" yet in the field (for that, it would have to be used as the default file system by at least one major distributor for at least a year), it is certainly not an option for servers _yet_. A file system that intransparently (i. e. not inode count or block count) refuses to create a new file doesn't belong on _my_ production machines, which shall migrate away from reiserfs on the next suitable occasion (such as upgrades). There's ext3fs, jfs, xfs, and in 2006 or 2007, we'll talk about reiser4 again. Yes, I am conservative WRT file systems and storage. -- Matthias Andree
