Darryl Gregorash wrote: > On 2007-01-22 13:09, Thomas Hertweck wrote: >> <snip> >> >> I don't know details about ReiserFS - this FS has been banned from all >> our systems a long time ago. I know a bit about ext3 and xfs though. >> > Interesting. I'd be interested in knowing why, if you can share that > information.
We have used ReiserFS when it became known and when it was available in Linux distributions. However, at that time we faced lots of weird problems that were caused by the filesystem (yes, these were problems with the FS and not the hardware) and reiserfsck was not working very well, i.e. if something went wrong, we had situation where reiserfsck made things much worse instead of repairing the FS. We then decided that this is certainly not a filesystem we would like to use in a production environment. Since we usually have to deal with large systems (tens or hundreds of TiB) and (very) large files, we decided to try xfs (which we already knew from our SGI servers) - xfs was designed and optimized for large filesystems and large files right from the beginning. It turned out to be a very good decision and, thus, there was no need to come back and try ReiserFS. On thin clients or laptops and/or dual-boot machines, we are using ext3. It's a bit safer when it comes to losing data at power cuts (which is due to the way the journalling works) - our desktops have no UPS. Furthermore, there exist tools to access ext partitions from Windows OS. >> When the filesystem is marked as clean, then there is usually no need >> to do an fsck or to replay the journal [...] >> > I thought you had to run fsck to determine if the filesystem is clean? Sorry, that was misleading: when the filesystem is marked as clean, then there is no need to run an entire filesystem check/recovery over the whole partition or to replay the journal. That might be a better phrasing. I hope you know what I mean. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
