Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 10:37:25PM +1000, Tom Massey uttered:
> > (except of course that Reiser FS is *much* faster at booting after a
> > crash).
> Presumably because it doesn't have to run e2fsck or similar right?
Yep.
> Is Reiser ready for the mainstream yet?
I think so, to a certain extent...
> ie, I'm about to build a new
> server and should I use Reiser?
Probably depends on what you want from the server - if you think it may
crash often (surely not something you want from a server) then it will
give you faster recovery times. But I can't honestly recommend it for a
server you want to be rock solid stable just yet. Just my experience,
but I seem to have had some problems with it. This may be the result of
pushing my system too hard with dodgy kernel modules and general playing
around etc, but I'd certainly test it for awhile before you tried
running a crucial server on Reiser FS. At the moment, I can't see any
major advantage of using Reiser FS over Ext2 on a server (doesn't seem
any faster in general use, and you don't want a server to crash so the
faster recovery speed probably doesn't matter), so for a solid server I
think you might be better off with Ext2 just now. Just because it's been
better tested basically. YMMV.
Tom
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
