> I thought there were some data corruption problems with Reiser on s390. > Is my impression mistaken?
That's what I meant by "fail". You have to drive it pretty hard to generate the problem though -- it's some kind of race condition in the journal code that only appears at very high load (formatting a large multivolume LV will trip it about 3 times out of 10). If you don't exceed the threshold, or have lots of small files, you may choose to accept the possibility of failure vs the performance improvement of reiser for lots of small files. If I don't know what the filesystem is going to be used for or what the performance characteristics of the apps are, then ext3 is my default (and is the default for Debian and (I think) RH). I will create reiserfs filesystems for applications that create a zillion small files (like Usenet news spool). That's also the beauty of EVMS. It does a very nice job of letting you pick the right tool for the job AND still have a nice storage management interface at the same time. I really regret that it didn't become the "standard" -- LVM is OK, but its management tools suck. EVMS is a lot more sophisticated from a manageability standpoint, and I suppose I can be happy that EVMS can tell LVM what to do. > > <snip> > Reiserfs is more popular, because it is the default in SuSE. We've > observed a fair number of cases where reiserfs fails at very high I/O > rates, so we tend to use ext3 in places where we know it's going to get > beaten hard. reiserfs performs slightly better than ext3 on filesystems > that will have a lot of small files (that's its design point anyway) so > you may need to mix and match. > </snip> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
