On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 08:30:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 06:03:44PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > > > This juggling to keep all the balls (disks) in the air sounds familiar. > > Non-partisan caution: before you settle on Reiserfs, read some recent > > threads about Reiserfsck and Reiserfs vs JFS. I went to JFS when > > Reiserfsck fscked up my drives. Never had a problem with JFS despite > > many power failures. > > We made the choice for EXT3 ourselves, since it is the only filesystemm which > can be grown online and shrinked offline, and reiserfs is not really a > solution. > > JFS/XFS can be grown online, but not shrinked, so they are problematic. >
Hi Sven, I went from ext3 to reiserfs because of corruption after power failures. Ditto reiserfs to JFS. With JFS there have been no problems that I can see. Once I get my new system running etch stable, I'll put in one of the comprehesive file integrity monitors (current computer doesn't have the juice to do that __and__ get anything accomplished) so I get a notice if anything goes missing. Now that I'm using LVM I'll want that ability to grow. But I doubt I'll need to shrink. I wish that there was a filesystem format that had built-in redundancy for the data (not just the superblocks). Its OK to have raid1 to protect against drive failure, but it would be nice to have something be a little more concerned about data integrity. Reading all the docs, it seems that all the fsck utils focus on getting the filesystem to a mountable state; loss of data is a secondary concern. There was a long thread here recently looking at this in some detail. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
