On Tuesday 18 July 2006 16:15, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Francesco Pietra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > When installing the OS I thought that the most recent fs (reiserfs 3.6) > > were the most secure. Actually I have reiserfs on i386 (no raid) with no > > problem. Anyway, probably a warning against reiserfs on the installation > > disk or manual would avoid much troubles to users and advicers. > > > > Thanks a lot > > francesco pietra > > The most recent FS is generaly the one with the most unfound bugs left > and often a lot of design kinks that remain to be fixed. > > Something like ext2 on the other hand has all the bugs and kinks > worked out over the years and there is very little new code that could > go wrong.
I was aware of this principle. However, principles are never absolute. Reiserfs 3.6 was offered at the Debian installation without warnings and I took it for good (I had also a long positive experience with reiserfs on i386, to my excuse). But the matter with amd64 may be more complex than it appears from the filesystems: I got a kernel (the last one from Debian) dump twice (reported here) while computing with mpqc, and it had nothing to do with hackers. In both cases the kernel was recovered with a reinstall, which did not take anything from repositories. I am also still wondering why I get /lib32 while I am installing a few things that supposedly require only /lib64. I got the naive impression that Debian amd64 is not mature for running mpqc. Luckily, the last useful computation can be easily recovered (until the HD allows so). Yours francesco pietra > > MfG > Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]