On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 21:26 -0600, Andrew McNabb wrote: > I've always had negative feelings towards Reiser FS, and I'm not sure > whether it's just misguided prejudice or if it's really justified. I've > heard at least a couple of horror stories, and I've gotten the feeling > that stability isn't a top goal. Is it still this way, or has it never > been this way, or has it improved?
I've only ever seen one total data loss because of purely software
problems and reiserfs on SuSE [the caps are a hint that this was Some
Time Ago(tm)] was the culprit. Hans Reiser's opinion is that error
correction should be handled in hardware, not software. LKML members are
leery of including the latest reiserfs 4 code because it looks ugly to
them.
That said, reiserfs seems to be much kinder to hardware. On a couple of
occasions, jochc has shared his personal experience using reiserfs on a
seriously large number of disks. He saw significantly lower rates of
failure after switching to reiserfs. Of all "evidence" I've encountered,
both pro and con, his is the most compelling.
I also like that reiserfs (unlike ext2/ext3) can add inodes if it starts
running out.
I've heard it said "there are two types of reiserfs user: 1) those who
tried reiserfs and love it and 2) those who tried reiserfs on Red Hat
Linux". If reiserfs isn't a high priority on your distro of choice,
you're probably in for a bumpier ride. If someone is helping to do good
Q&A on it, you might love it.
--
Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
google talk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:0 # copy & paste for your convenience
* ^From:.*sjansen@
/dev/null # /ignore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
.-----------------------------------. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `-----------------------------------'
