On Thursday 16 August 2001 00:09, you wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:22, Paul wrote: > > > ReiserFS still has some issues with RAID and with certain NFS > > > configurations. For ordinary home use (i.e. one desktop system or a > > > small LAN) you should be fine. Apparently XFS (not officially > > > supported by MandrakeSoft) is the best filesystem for SMB (e.g. > > > Samba) setups. > > > > > > Ext2 was designed to be a very extensible filesystem, with 'hooks' > > > allowing other functions to be added. There are projects out there > > > that add features like NTFS-style compression to Ext2. Ext3 is > > > essentially Ext2 with journalling added. Because of this, Ext2 can > > > be upgraded to Ext3 with no data loss. As Tom suggested, however, a > > > backup is still advisable. > > > > Backups are always advisable (I am a backup paranoid ;) > > Oh yeah :-) > > > A question though: what is the explicit advantage of a journalling FS? > > Is it faster? More efficient? > > Is it just the way that it prevents data corruption in case of a power > > outage? > > A Journalling FS is simply a FS that sets aside a small part of space > for logging writes so that it can roll-back when an error (from a power > surge, for example) occurs. This is a feature that is shared by > filesystems like ReiserFS, Ext3 and JFS. > > The Filesystems HOWTO (available at LinuxDoc.org) states that > journalling FSs sacrifice some speed for much reliability. It must be > noted, however, that this was written a while ago, and today's > journalling FSs are quite fast, due to superior design. In tests, > ReiserFS has proven itself to be at least as fast as Ext2 for > ordinary-size files, and much faster for small files. This, however, is > due to other innovations besides journalling. ReiserFS has no concept of > blocks/clusters as Ext2 does, and so it has no cluster wastage and no > fragmentation. This increases efficiency in space, speed and > reliability. > > > In the 2+ years that I am (happily) running Linux (all ext2 disks) I > > have had this happen only 3 times, and each time things came up nice > > again after the automatic fsck's. > > Ext2 is quite a resiliant filesystem, but nowhere near as resiliant as a > good journalling one. FSCKs can sometimes damage data (like Scandisc can > in DOS), since what they are doing requires some clever guesstimation. A > journalling FS can rely on its log, and so can recover much more quickly > and reliably. Thanks, Sridhar, for sharing your wisdom! All the info you have shared in thread alone (not to mention the rest) is very much appreciated (by me at least and I'm sure by everyone else on the list). This has got to be the best mailing list yet. ;-) skinky
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://wwww.mandrakestore.com
