> You do it turns out. Its becoming an issue more and more that the sheer > amount of storage means that the undetected error rate from disks, > hosts, memory, cables and everything else is rising.
IMHO the possibility to hit such a random-so-far-undetected-corruption is very low with one of the big/expensive raid systems as they are doing fancy stuff like 'disk scrubbing' and usually do fail disks at very early stages.. * I've seen storage systems from a BIG vendor die due to firmware bugs * I've seen FC-Cards die.. SAN-switches rebooted.. People used my cables to do rope skipping * We had Fire, non-working UPS and faulty diesel generators.. but so far the FSes (and applications) on the Storage never complained about corrupted data. ..YMMV.. Btw: I don't think that Reiserfs really behaves this bad with broken hardware. So far, Reiser3 survived 2 broken Harddrives without problems while i've seen ext2/3 die 4 times so far... (= everything inside /lost+found). Reiser4 survived # mkisofs . > /dev/sda Lucky me.. maybe.. To get back on-topic: Some people try very hard to claim that the world doesn't need Reiser4 and that you can do everything with ext3. Ext3 may be fine for them but some people (like me) really need Reiser4 because they got applications/workloads that won't work good (fast) on ext3. Why is it such a big thing to include a filesystem? Even if it's unstable: does anyone care? Eg: the HFS+ driver is buggy (corrupted the FS of my OSX installation 3 times so far) but does this buggyness affect people *not* using it? No. Regards, Adrian
