On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Praedor Tempus wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > all good no bad i dont think there is a bad to reiser fs > I am prepared to start switching over to reiser but I have > a question. I build my own kernels, no rpm kernels for me, > thanks. Do I need to specifically rebuild my kernel to be > able to handle reiser? I just recently installed the > reiser-utils rpm from Mandrake on my Mandrake 7.1-7.2 > hybrid system. Is there anything else required before I > go and reformat my / and /usr mounts? Okay, I've finally caught up reading all of the mails. First, to answer your question from your last mail, reiser-utils rpm contains utilities to administer/maintain you fs, like mkreiserfs, and whatever the reiserfs checking utility is. You will have to enable reiserfs within your kernel. If you are using Mandrake's kernels, you should be fine. If you are downloading a vanilla(standard) kernel source, you will need to download the reiserfs kernel patches from reiserfs website. Now, my own experience with reiserfs AND ext3fs. Both needs kernel patching to be used, but you can only patch one or the other. Reiserfs is *fast* which is what I like about it. Much faster, but it does have higher cpu load. One downfall that applies our company, is that reiserfs will fail horribly when used with NFSD v3. NFSD v3 is needed in many of our cases, and preferred over v2(which has no checksumming, which can lead to corruption). So if you need to maintain a high volume nfs server, might want to reconsider before diving in. My roommate uses reiserfs on his company's webserver(www.rottentomates.com - great site if you are a movie fanatic), and hasn't complained yet. But he's not using NFS. Ext3 is nice in that you can easily convert a ext2 filesystem to ext3 and back if you decide you don't want it. One of our big clients uses ext3 on their servers with NFSv3 and large file system. It seems to be serving them very well. But it's nowhere as fast as reiserfs. So reiserfs has the speed advantage, with a bit more risk than ext3. Now, there's another issue to consider since you want "production" servers. Both of these filesystems, under high i/o load has been known to corrupt files. Don't exactly know how much, but I'm assuming enough to make some steer clear away from them. If your server won't have high i/o load, this shouldn't be your concern. But if you will face high load, ext2 may well be a better option. I'm not voting for either of the two until I get around to testing JFS. John Kim Linux System Engineer @ ASL - visit us at www.aslab.com
Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.