Bernd Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 31 July 2006 21:29, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > The point is that it's quite hard to really fuck up ext{2,3} with only
> > some KB being written while it seems (due to the
> > fragile^Wsophisticated on-disk data structures) that it's just easy to
> > kill a reiser3 filesystem.> Well, I was once very 'luckily' and after a system crash (*) e2fsck put > all files into lost+found. Sure, I never experienced this again, but I > also never experienced something like this with reiserfs. So please, stop > this kind of FUD against reiser3.6. It isn't FUD. One data point doesn't allow you to draw conclusions. Yes, I've seen/heard of ext2/ext3 failures and data loss too. But at least the same number for ReiserFS. And I know it is outnumbered 10 to 1 or so in my sample, so that would indicate at a 10 fold higher probability of catastrophic data loss, other factors mostly the same. > While filesystem speed is nice, it also would be great if reiser4.x would be > very robust against any kind of hardware failures. Can't have both. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
