Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The command adds the journal to the filesystem as a hidden file > without bringing it on line. I've done this on countless systems > live without problems. the point is that if you enable journaling on a journal that *may* have already errors, since you will now skip fsck on reboot, you cannot rely on journalling to fix these errors, only to ensure fs operations operate smoothly. the problem is that if your fs has errors, you may end in corrupting your fs, though the kernel'll probably warn that some metadata look "strange". i agree this is fine for most people to live enabling journaling, but there's a risk. so better let reboot in single mode, check your fses and then only enable journalling.
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Monday 14 October 2002 05:03 pm, Thierry Vignaud wrote: > Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> tune2fs -j /dev/hdaX > i would do this only in single mode after having fully checked the fs > with fsck to be sure to rely on journal protection for new operations > whereas some errors were still there in the fs. The command adds the journal to the filesystem as a hidden file without bringing it on line. I've done this on countless systems live without problems. Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Monday 14 October 2002 10:40 am, J. Greenlees wrote: > well, when I went ext3 I started getting major shutdown problems, where > the system can't unmount device, like eth0 and /dev/fd0 ( thelast is > really wierd the device is busy and no such device on the computer ) > it is faster, and definately an improvement for that alone, but it > doesn't like shutting down eth0 on my tower or the floppy drive on > diskless workstation ( laptop) There should be no connection at all between ethernet and filesystems. I suspect that the problem would be with SuperMount, if your floppy is giving you grief. Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > tune2fs -j /dev/hdaX i would do this only in single mode after having fully checked the fs with fsck to be sure to rely on journal protection for new operations whereas some errors were still there in the fs.
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Vox wrote: > Silly Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > becomes daring and writes: > > >>>"B" == Biagio Lucini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>B> Seriously, you have given a partial view of what ext3 is. There >>B> are serious reasons to choose it in my view >> >>This is a naive question and my first-guess is that it is not >>possible, but is there any way to 'upgrade' a live file-system to >>ext3? I have some older machines that could benefit, but it's not >>worth doing a complete re-install of all software. > > > Yes, you can. ext3 is ext2 with a journal stuck in (and some driver > improvements, I believe), so you just tune2fs it (-j option, IIRC) > and mod your /etc/fstab > > Do a google for it, to make sure (I went ext2-reiserfs-ext3 so I > didn't get to play with tune2fs) but it should be fairly easy. > > Vox > well, when I went ext3 I started getting major shutdown problems, where the system can't unmount device, like eth0 and /dev/fd0 ( thelast is really wierd the device is busy and no such device on the computer ) it is faster, and definately an improvement for that alone, but it doesn't like shutting down eth0 on my tower or the floppy drive on diskless workstation ( laptop) just an observation of how ext3 worked for me.
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yeah, and the good news with ext3 as opposed to another fs is that if the kernel for some reason can't mount it as ext3 it can still mount as ext2. On Sunday 13 October 2002 22:40, Leon Brooks wrote: > On Monday 14 October 2002 08:43 am, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > > This is a naive question and my first-guess is that it is not > > possible, but is there any way to 'upgrade' a live file-system to > > ext3? I have some older machines that could benefit, but it's not > > worth doing a complete re-install of all software. > > tune2fs -j /dev/hdaX > > Wait a few seconds, adjust fstab, remount at your leisure, game over. Make > sure that your kernel can read the ext3 and (jpd) modules from its ramdisk > before you do this to your root partition. > > Cheers; Leon - -- "Having no way as way, having no limitation as limitation." Bruce Lee PGP Keys: http://www.jeetkunedomaster.net/~junfan/pubkey.asc Jason Straight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1796276 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBPaozbhFHZPcobeHxAQKiNAQAlkwI2A6iwc+BxblmLzDtvVZsQrUqDK2a opK5nYgwciAqZSyVlDVCPYMKol4R1tsFoXdHwuyFPFoaUUVf8yVQFtzn6Y8jS+mn gzTDqcsw/RNucGmqDabEsMGKUqPWd81BQwH0LIl+DCbxXs+PKGsilQRnzpI+hDZm 4Phgk1WrKrI= =CYsO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Monday 14 October 2002 08:43 am, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > This is a naive question and my first-guess is that it is not > possible, but is there any way to 'upgrade' a live file-system to > ext3? I have some older machines that could benefit, but it's not > worth doing a complete re-install of all software. tune2fs -j /dev/hdaX Wait a few seconds, adjust fstab, remount at your leisure, game over. Make sure that your kernel can read the ext3 and (jpd) modules from its ramdisk before you do this to your root partition. Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Silly Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> becomes daring and writes: >> "B" == Biagio Lucini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > B> Seriously, you have given a partial view of what ext3 is. There > B> are serious reasons to choose it in my view > > This is a naive question and my first-guess is that it is not > possible, but is there any way to 'upgrade' a live file-system to > ext3? I have some older machines that could benefit, but it's not > worth doing a complete re-install of all software. Yes, you can. ext3 is ext2 with a journal stuck in (and some driver improvements, I believe), so you just tune2fs it (-j option, IIRC) and mod your /etc/fstab Do a google for it, to make sure (I went ext2-reiserfs-ext3 so I didn't get to play with tune2fs) but it should be fairly easy. Vox -- Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messenger For info on safety in the BDSM lifestyle http://www.the-vox.com Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. msg78893/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
> "B" == Biagio Lucini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: B> Seriously, you have given a partial view of what ext3 is. There B> are serious reasons to choose it in my view This is a naive question and my first-guess is that it is not possible, but is there any way to 'upgrade' a live file-system to ext3? I have some older machines that could benefit, but it's not worth doing a complete re-install of all software. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thursday 10 October 2002 04:42, Buchan Milne wrote: > Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > > In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you > > create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. > > > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > > Besides all the other arguments: > > ext3 has quotas (ok, non-root users can't check them, but they are > enforced), and ACLs (when mounted with the 'acl' option). > > XFS is probably the only other FS I would consider, mainly since it has > a working dump, which also preserves metadata (like acls). > > > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > > slower than FAT16/32. > > Corporate users will miss features that have been available since > Windows NT (ACLs) and Windows 2000 finally supports quotas. The only two > filesystems that can compare with NTFS5 are XFS and ext3. > > The OS to beat isn't win9x anymore, and hasn't been for a long time ... > the OSs to beat are win2k Server, winxp pro and the upcoming Windows.net > > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in > > mdk9.1? > > IMHO, when it works, has quotas and acl support, and performs better in > most or all areas then ext3. > > Buchan so how about ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer? and why? The advantages vs. disadvantages?
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
vendredi, le 11 octobre, 2002 18h21, Todd Lyons a écrit: > Dave Fluri wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:35:03AM -0400 : > > I've never had a lick of trouble with either ext3 or ReiserFS. After a > > couple of years of trouble-free use of ReiserFS, I installed Debian on > > this same machine. I wanted to share a partition between Mandrake and > > Debian. At the time, Debian did not support ReiserFS but it did support > > ext3, so I switched my shared partition to ext3. No worries since. Never > > even so much as a hint of trouble, and I live in a rural area with > > frequent power interruptions and disturbances. > > For reference, what hard drives do you have (Make and Model) and what > type of controller and is it running at udma speeds? > > Blue skies... Todd hda = Quantum Fireball CX20.4A (20 GB) -- this used to have a Reiser partition but now is #/sbin/fdisk -l /dev/hda Disk /dev/hda: 240 heads, 63 sectors, 2637 cylinders Units = cylinders of 15120 * 512 bytes Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System /dev/hda1 1 511 3863128+ b Win95 FAT32 /dev/hda2 * 512 514 22680 83 Linux /dev/hda3 515 2637 16049880f Win95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/hda5 515 1045 4014328+ b Win95 FAT32 /dev/hda6 1046 1576 4014328+ b Win95 FAT32 /dev/hda7 1577 2107 4014328+ b Win95 FAT32 /dev/hda8 2108 2637 4006768+ b Win95 FAT32 hdb = Maxtor 94091U8 (40 GB) -- looks like this #/sbin/fdisk -l /dev/hdb Warning: deleting partitions after 16 Disk /dev/hdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 4865 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System /dev/hdb1 * 1 590 4739143+ c Win95 FAT32 (LBA) /dev/hdb2 591 765 1405687+ c Win95 FAT32 (LBA) /dev/hdb3 766 4865 32933250 85 Linux extended (type 85) /dev/hdb5 766 842618471 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb6 843 1607 6144831 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb7 1608 1684618471 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb8 1685 1939 2048256 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb9 1940 2194 2048256 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb10 2195 2245409626 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb11 2246 2278265041 82 Linux swap /dev/hdb12 2279 2408 1044193+ 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb13 2409 3172 6136798+ 83 Linux ReiserFS /dev/hdb14 3173 3248610438+ 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb15 3249 3502 2040223+ 83 Linux ext3 /dev/hdb16 3503 3756 2040223+ 83 Linux ext3 fdisk, for some reason, won't show the last three partitions on that disk. The end of that SHOULD indicate /dev/hdb17 392 MB ext3, /dev/hdb18 6.1 GB ext2, /dev/hdb10 1019 MB ext3 and /dev/hdb20 at 1004 MB as ext3. Mandrake 8.1 (2.4.8-26mdk), Debian 2.2r5 and Mandrake 8.2, soon to be replaced with final. The more stable of these two Mandrake distros (for me) is definitely 8.1. 8.1 is as stable as Debian with the 2.2 series kernel and almost as stable as Solaris on Alpha or VMS on Alpha). 8.2 is probably stable enough but there's not enough value above 8.1 to make me want to migrate all my stuff. We'll see about 9.0. The box also has Win98SE to keep Diablo running for my teenage son :-) All partitions are working fine and visible under the appropriate system to the extent that would be expected. That is to say, FAT32 partitions are visible from any OS. ext2 and ext3 visible from all Linuxes. ReiserFS visible only to Mandrake (i.e. not to Debian with stock 2.2.5 kernel.) VIA Apollo IDE controller on the PCI bus, Model VT82C586 Running at UDMA 33., limited by the Quantum disk. Anyway, that's probably more info than you wanted. Dave
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Dave Fluri wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:35:03AM -0400 : > > I've never had a lick of trouble with either ext3 or ReiserFS. After a couple > of years of trouble-free use of ReiserFS, I installed Debian on this same > machine. I wanted to share a partition between Mandrake and Debian. At the > time, Debian did not support ReiserFS but it did support ext3, so I switched > my shared partition to ext3. No worries since. Never even so much as a hint > of trouble, and I live in a rural area with frequent power interruptions and > disturbances. For reference, what hard drives do you have (Make and Model) and what type of controller and is it running at udma speeds? Blue skies... Todd -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com Mandrake: An amalgam of good ideas from RedHat, Debian, and MandrakeSoft. All in all, IMHO, an unbeatable combination. --Levi Ramsey on Cooker ML Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.19-16mdk msg79759/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Jason Straight wrote on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:19:15PM -0400 : > > For me the problem was that files which weren't even being written to would > get fragged with data from other files ending up mixed in with them. This I make it a point to use notail for reiser. I don't like the tail packing. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, that just means that I'm uncomfortable with it due to problems I have had in the past. When I disable tails, it just seems to work much much better. Blue skies... Todd -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com Never take no as an answer from someone who's not authorized to say yes. --Ben Reser on Cooker ML Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.19-16mdk msg79757/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
jeudi. le 10 octobre 10, 2002 04h12, Per ?yvind Karlsen a écrit: > ReiserFS is still not to be trusted.. > I have experienced this for myself and alot of other people are > complaining too... > > oh well, back to work*sigh* > > Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > > In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you > > create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. > > > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > > > > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > > slower than FAT16/32. > > > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in > > mdk9.1? I've never had a lick of trouble with either ext3 or ReiserFS. After a couple of years of trouble-free use of ReiserFS, I installed Debian on this same machine. I wanted to share a partition between Mandrake and Debian. At the time, Debian did not support ReiserFS but it did support ext3, so I switched my shared partition to ext3. No worries since. Never even so much as a hint of trouble, and I live in a rural area with frequent power interruptions and disturbances. Dave
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Friday 11 October 2002 08:19 am, Jason Straight wrote: > On Thursday 10 October 2002 07:17 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: >> Jason Straight wrote on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:45:45AM -0400 : >>> If I had a nickel for every file reiserfs fragged on a busy server it >>> still woudln't come close to paying for the downtime - ext3 is rock >>> solid. >> Reiser definitely has its benefits. I have seen reports of people that >> use it for news servers where expires normally take hours. With reiser >> it does it in (IIRC) 15 minutes or less. When things go wrong, a newbie >> is scared by the daunting task of repairing the fs. >> [...] he swore to never use Reiser again. (That's the wrong >> attitude because on any other file system, the abuse he put it through >> might have rendered it completely useless). > For me the problem was that files which weren't even being written to would > get fragged with data from other files ending up mixed in with them. This > would happen on machines that had been running for long periods of time > with uptimes nearing 200+ days. Suddenly files like sendmail.cf, > httpd.conf, and probably many others I didn't notice on multiple servers. I've just had a power failure at a client site and Reiser killed a file in /usr/lib/ somewhere needed for PostFix: when I try to start PostFix, that process and anything that tries to go through the filesystem after that (on that machine, anything except Pick/D3, and even that when it does a sync() call) freezes. Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 For me the problem was that files which weren't even being written to would get fragged with data from other files ending up mixed in with them. This would happen on machines that had been running for long periods of time with uptimes nearing 200+ days. Suddenly files like sendmail.cf, httpd.conf, and probably many others I didn't notice on multiple servers. I could see fragging during crashes, but while running - ouch. On Thursday 10 October 2002 07:17 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: > Jason Straight wrote on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:45:45AM -0400 : > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > If I had a nickel for every file reiserfs fragged on a busy server it > > still woudln't come close to paying for the downtime - ext3 is rock > > solid. > > > reiserfsck --check > reiserfsck --fix-fixable > > > > reiserfsck --rebuild-sb > reiserfsck --rebuild-tree > > > Reiser definitely has its benefits. I have seen reports of people that > use it for news servers where expires normally take hours. With reiser > it does it in (IIRC) 15 minutes or less. When things go wrong, a newbie > is scared by the daunting task of repairing the fs. > > Had one on IRC just the other day. Newbie shuffled power wires around > to add a fan. He ended up overloading one segment and his drive > started writing bad data. He had to do a rebuild-tree to get it all > back. He learned a lot that night. Unfortunately, it scared him so > much that he swore to never use Reiser again. (That's the wrong > attitude because on any other file system, the abuse he put it through > might have rendered it completely useless). > > Blue skies... Todd - -- "Having no way as way, having no limitation as limitation." Bruce Lee PGP Keys: http://www.jeetkunedomaster.net/~junfan/pubkey.asc Jason Straight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1796276 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBPaYZCBFHZPcobeHxAQI3jwP/fSwlOrooye4mKGGL1MfTzsSzAh66uc6S C91AvqbPZFdEgdwGchA7liL0WN94SUOvCwfOEmie99A53O+/h3p9pmujntmgWKyp cVn9RusvcAG8ryAUvU9oUqbOknk2+TAFjsnfAd9GdN2aCEPMVodDAykF4OmMrw+b JeIUnGIv+2k= =VEwP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Jason Straight wrote on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:45:45AM -0400 : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > If I had a nickel for every file reiserfs fragged on a busy server it still > woudln't come close to paying for the downtime - ext3 is rock solid. reiserfsck --check reiserfsck --fix-fixable reiserfsck --rebuild-sb reiserfsck --rebuild-tree Reiser definitely has its benefits. I have seen reports of people that use it for news servers where expires normally take hours. With reiser it does it in (IIRC) 15 minutes or less. When things go wrong, a newbie is scared by the daunting task of repairing the fs. Had one on IRC just the other day. Newbie shuffled power wires around to add a fan. He ended up overloading one segment and his drive started writing bad data. He had to do a rebuild-tree to get it all back. He learned a lot that night. Unfortunately, it scared him so much that he swore to never use Reiser again. (That's the wrong attitude because on any other file system, the abuse he put it through might have rendered it completely useless). Blue skies... Todd -- | MandrakeSoft USA | Security is like an onion. It's made | | http://www.mandrakesoft.com | made up of several layers and makes | | http://www.mandrakelinux.com | you cry. --Howard Chu| Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.19-16mdk msg78754/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Michal Bukovjan wrote: > > > Not really, as I recently found the hard way on my IBM DTLA-xxx 60GB. another victim of this IBM series. It is done in the hardware, untill you reach a certain maximum (no backup sectors are available anymore for the bad ones). That said, the problem with these hdd series is a bit strange. I wonder if the sectors are really bad. A low level format often cures it. But with time the bad sectors return again. Danny
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If I had a nickel for every file reiserfs fragged on a busy server it still woudln't come close to paying for the downtime - ext3 is rock solid. On Thursday 10 October 2002 09:20 am, andre wrote: > On Thursday 10 October 2002 14:32, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > > btw. reiserfs does not *support* bad blocks marking yet, that's kinda > > annoying too... > > Isn't that done today in the harddisk itself? Don't think you need it - -- "Having no way as way, having no limitation as limitation." Bruce Lee PGP Keys: http://www.jeetkunedomaster.net/~junfan/pubkey.asc Jason Straight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1796276 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBPaWEkRFHZPcobeHxAQK0sQP/RYQYOcl3TvPBT4+MZYY8KN2RnZcwrPdB 9e4wkGujz7rtNgj1piAIVkbTSMtHR3mjzOQ2x6VDcc0uSVinkqgl16mYmXLDoJ05 kcdES3hiBsWn29IM6vJX11fjUCyMWaGl7c+ylNi5Uane2XIlrbDfIbxMR8lJTEPq 7hK53LqEPfc= =kytS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thursday 10 October 2002 14:32, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > btw. reiserfs does not *support* bad blocks marking yet, that's kinda > annoying too... Isn't that done today in the harddisk itself? Don't think you need it
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
andre wrote: > On Thursday 10 October 2002 14:32, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > >>btw. reiserfs does not *support* bad blocks marking yet, that's kinda >>annoying too... > > Isn't that done today in the harddisk itself? Don't think you need it > > Not really, as I recently found the hard way on my IBM DTLA-xxx 60GB. Michal
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
[snip] > ReiserFS people have an excellent vision of next-gen plugin-based > filesystem, but it turns out it's not quite ready yet. When (if) it > becomes ready, however, it will replace ext?fs without doubt (my doubt, > anyway ;-) ). Mmm, that's what they keep telling about translators on the GNU/Hurd mailinglists and pages :-)) Wondering when it will become usable enough... Guy
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > Thierry Vignaud wrote: > >> d) ext3 has a much better fsck suite : >> - currently, reiserfs / is never fcsked on boot if needed because >> of broken fsck that refuse to check ro mounted fs (thought it >> seems to have recently be fixed) >> - reiserfsck don't handle std fsck's option set >> >> >> ext3 + htree patch is faster than reiserfs on *creating/deleting* >> thousands of files in 2.5bk. >> >> > OK, you convinced me. In addition to your arguments, I could throw in > that ReiserFS doesn't yet support dump for fast filesystem backups. > > I never had a serious problem with recent versions of Reiser, and > always found it to be blazingly fast, but considering experiences that > others have shared on this list, I'm looking at it in new light. > > ReiserFS people have an excellent vision of next-gen plugin-based > filesystem, but it turns out it's not quite ready yet. When (if) it > becomes ready, however, it will replace ext?fs without doubt (my > doubt, anyway ;-) ). > btw. reiserfs does not *support* bad blocks marking yet, that's kinda annoying too...
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Aleksander Adamowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ReiserFS people have an excellent vision of next-gen plugin-based > filesystem, but it turns out it's not quite ready yet.* a reiserfs4 snapshot is expected soon for linux-2.5.x. as for production usage, you can wait ... > When (if) it becomes ready, however, it will replace ext?fs without > doubt (my doubt, anyway ;-) ). it still needs lot of works (testing, fsck, ...)
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Thierry Vignaud wrote: >d) ext3 has a much better fsck suite : > - currently, reiserfs / is never fcsked on boot if needed because > of broken fsck that refuse to check ro mounted fs (thought it > seems to have recently be fixed) > - reiserfsck don't handle std fsck's option set > > >ext3 + htree patch is faster than reiserfs on *creating/deleting* >thousands of files in 2.5bk. > > OK, you convinced me. In addition to your arguments, I could throw in that ReiserFS doesn't yet support dump for fast filesystem backups. I never had a serious problem with recent versions of Reiser, and always found it to be blazingly fast, but considering experiences that others have shared on this list, I'm looking at it in new light. ReiserFS people have an excellent vision of next-gen plugin-based filesystem, but it turns out it's not quite ready yet. When (if) it becomes ready, however, it will replace ext?fs without doubt (my doubt, anyway ;-) ). -- Olo GG#: 274614 ICQ UIN: 19780575 http://olo.office.altkom.com.pl
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you > create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > Besides all the other arguments: ext3 has quotas (ok, non-root users can't check them, but they are enforced), and ACLs (when mounted with the 'acl' option). XFS is probably the only other FS I would consider, mainly since it has a working dump, which also preserves metadata (like acls). > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > slower than FAT16/32. > Corporate users will miss features that have been available since Windows NT (ACLs) and Windows 2000 finally supports quotas. The only two filesystems that can compare with NTFS5 are XFS and ext3. The OS to beat isn't win9x anymore, and hasn't been for a long time ... the OSs to beat are win2k Server, winxp pro and the upcoming Windows.net > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in > mdk9.1? > IMHO, when it works, has quotas and acl support, and performs better in most or all areas then ext3. Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:12:12 +0200 Per ?yvind Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ReiserFS is still not to be trusted.. > I have experienced this for myself and alot of other people are > complaining too... It seems everyone has the same bad experiences with reiser. My experiences are different though. I had a few times hard resets on ext3, and experienced open files, which got throwed away, just like on ext2. This was just what I hated ext2 for. It was in the default mode, so if I had chosen to continue on using ext3, I would have switched to the slower/safer mode. The only time I had a bad experience with reiserfs was when I switched from the mdk 8.2 kernel, to a selfcompiled 2.4.18 kernel. After a crash (testing a ppscsi scanner), I had to do a rebuild of the reiserfs, which was rather ugly. I'm not sure what happened here. Maybe more people run into this problem on a 8.2 mdk box, with a vanilla 2.4.18 kernel? > > In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you > > create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. > > > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > > > > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > > slower than FAT16/32. > > > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in > > mdk9.1? > > > > > > -- Marcel Pol Linux 2.4.19-16.ringworld-mdk, up 1 day, 17:36 Registered User #163523
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Steffen Barszus wrote: >On Thursday 10 October 2002 10:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Aleksander Adamowski wrote: >> >> >>>Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to >>>manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. >>>After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a >>>new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. >>> >>> > >No way , I don't would advice reiserfs as default. On crashes on my box >(mostly while testing new things) reiserfs is not secure. The last event I >had was , that Kde/X wasn't starting anymore, and before I had the epg.data >from vdr in my bash-history ( funny isn't it ? ) and I have reiser on that >partition, so don't tell me reiser is stable .. . For a journaling FS i >should be sure to have no problems after a crash , maybe I could live with >not written things , but I should be sure that already written data will not >be touched anymore > > > > > don't forget the random file corruption, you *do* get tired of stuff like this: [root@itsamfunnet .error]# ls ls: scp: Permission denied (this *is* a reiserfs issue)
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thursday 10 October 2002 10:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > No way , I don't would advice reiserfs as default. On crashes on my box (mostly while testing new things) reiserfs is not secure. The last event I had was , that Kde/X wasn't starting anymore, and before I had the epg.data from vdr in my bash-history ( funny isn't it ? ) and I have reiser on that partition, so don't tell me reiser is stable .. . For a journaling FS i should be sure to have no problems after a crash , maybe I could live with not written things , but I should be sure that already written data will not be touched anymore
RE: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >Aleksander Adamowski >Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:52 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS? > > >In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you >create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset >to ext3fs. > >Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to >manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced >filesystem. Don't do that. I had one bad incident (stepped in the power cable) and the _complete_ reiserfs partition was unusable, after multiple attempts at recovery I had lost much more time to recover a few unimportant files than if I had went straight to a new installation (fortunately the box didn't contain any really important stuff). I had quite some "accidents" with ext2 due to experimenting with hardware and using a known broken mobo etc. but they were never that bad and I've yet to see data loss with ext3. >After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a >new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > >If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with >Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are >slower than FAT16/32. I beg to differ. My very same box with Linux is _so_ much faster at file access than Windows with FAT, regardless of whether I'm using reiser, ext2 or ext3 under Linux. You'll notice when repeatedly accessing the same files. Win98 just does such a bad job at caching. -Malte
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Per ?yvind Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ReiserFS is still not to be trusted.. reiserfs can write up to 30 seconds after a program do some writing, so if something happens before the end of these 30 seconds (power outrage, hard lock, disk disconnection, reset, ...), all the metadata'll be correct once the journal is replayed on reboot but ... all files that weren't written because of the 30 seconds delay'll either be zeroed or randomed with current content of the disk sectors they got allocated to (but not written on). ext3 will garrant you this won't happen (at least in default journalizing mode)
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
Biagio Lucini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Seriously, you have given a partial view of what ext3 is. There are > serious reasons to choose it in my view, among which: > a) back compatibility with ext2 (conversion to and fro on the fly and > possibility of mounting clean ext3 partitions as ext2) > b) not that slow for "normal use" (another thing is the server side, but > you where talking about windows newbies...) > c) three different types of journaling (the reiserfs team is working AFAIK > to similar things, but this is still under implementation) d) ext3 has a much better fsck suite : - currently, reiserfs / is never fcsked on boot if needed because of broken fsck that refuse to check ro mounted fs (thought it seems to have recently be fixed) - reiserfsck don't handle std fsck's option set > Mind you: when comparing speed, remember that in ext3 by default a > more time consuming but also more secure journaling is > implemented... ext3 + htree patch is faster than reiserfs on *creating/deleting* thousands of files in 2.5bk. anyway, speed argument is, as most benchmarks, valid only regarding what you want to do with your files (density per directory, usage (mostly creation/deletion or reads, ...) a news server, a mail server or a sgdb server have not the same requires as most end users depending of your usage, this fs or that one can be better.
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. IIRC tests showed there was not much difference in performance between reiserfs and ext3. Reiserfs speeds up by using notail, and ext3 when using writeback. Results depend on what you are doing. A relatively new test is here: http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html But remember it is only benchmarks, no real thing. > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". O dear, how terrible. > Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > slower than FAT16/32. FAT is definatly slower than ext2/3. At least on a linux machine. It is likely that the native windows driver is faster than the linux one. But I cannot see I really notice that on my machine, and there is no good way to compare, because it is a completly different system. At least ext doesn't fragment as much as FAT. So in the end, it will certainly be faster :) > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in mdk9.1? I would hate it. I do not trust reiserfs as much as ext2/3. The speed gain is neglible, it is not accesible from a windows partition on the same pc. Danny > >
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
ReiserFS is still not to be trusted.. I have experienced this for myself and alot of other people are complaining too... oh well, back to work*sigh* Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you > create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > slower than FAT16/32. > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in > mdk9.1? >
Re: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you > create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. > > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > > If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > slower than FAT16/32. > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in mdk9.1? You are looking for trouble with this kind of arguments :-) Seriously, you have given a partial view of what ext3 is. There are serious reasons to choose it in my view, among which: a) back compatibility with ext2 (conversion to and fro on the fly and possibility of mounting clean ext3 partitions as ext2) b) not that slow for "normal use" (another thing is the server side, but you where talking about windows newbies...) c) three different types of journaling (the reiserfs team is working AFAIK to similar things, but this is still under implementation) Mind you: when comparing speed, remember that in ext3 by default a more time consuming but also more secure journaling is implemented... Biagio
[Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS?
In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset to ext3fs. Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are slower than FAT16/32. So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in mdk9.1? -- Olo GG#: 274614 ICQ UIN: 19780575 http://olo.office.altkom.com.pl
