1 |
Andrea Chiavelli posted <43B00205.9000903@×××××××.it>, excerpted below, |
2 |
on Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:45:25 +0100: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I'm going to install gentoo 2005.1-r1 for amd64 on a turion-powered |
5 |
> notebook and an awful dilemma caught me: should i use reiser4 for root |
6 |
> partition or not? I've read tons of docs available on the topic but i |
7 |
> found it a bit contradictory. Do you know anything about the actual |
8 |
> state of support of the reiser4 fs? Does the default gentoo-kernel |
9 |
> support it ? have you experienced reiser4 on a amd64? Is it really so |
10 |
> fast or current software make it buggy and useless? |
11 |
|
12 |
I'm running reiserfs (reiser3) on everything, here, and have been somewhat |
13 |
impatiently waiting for reiser4. It *IS* possible to run it, but neither |
14 |
Gentoo in general nor Gentoo amd64 "support" it. That is, you can do it, |
15 |
but don't expect a lot of help or documentation, and expect a few things |
16 |
not to work without some additional effort on your part. |
17 |
|
18 |
Among other things, reiser4 will require grub patches not included in the |
19 |
Gentoo grub or grub-static ebuild, if you want to run reiser4 on /boot. |
20 |
|
21 |
Additionally, it's not in mainline kernel yet, and it'll likely be some |
22 |
time before it gets there. This is due in large part to Hans Reiser's |
23 |
lack of people skills. |
24 |
|
25 |
Unfortunately, while he's incredibly bright, as with many bright people, |
26 |
he's used to always being right, because few others have the intelligence |
27 |
to follow what he's talking about. Thus, when he gets in with a group of |
28 |
other very bright people that know the subject matter, such as the kernel |
29 |
hackers on LKML, and treats them like he's used to treating everybody, |
30 |
like only he has the intelligence to understand the territory, sparks fly. |
31 |
The result is that he has created a number of enemies on the LKML, folks |
32 |
that are normally quite helpful, but which he has repeatedly insulted when |
33 |
they try to explain what's needed, so they don't bother any longer -- they |
34 |
just continue to vote it down each time it comes up for inclusion, because |
35 |
it hasn't met the standards yet, and Hans seems more interested in |
36 |
insulting them when they try to explain things than in fixing the problem, |
37 |
so it continues... Like I said, he has a serious lack of people skills. |
38 |
Read some of the threads and see if YOU'D still be interested in working |
39 |
with him, after the insults he spits. I know *I* wouldn't be. |
40 |
|
41 |
Additionally, there's the small matter of his behavior on reiserfs |
42 |
(reiser3), after it was added to the kernel. As the kernel progressed, |
43 |
things such as extended attributes were added to most kernel file systems. |
44 |
Hans Reiser wasn't interested in doing the same for reiserfs. In fact, he |
45 |
OPPOSED the work when someone ELSE did it. His view was that reiserfs is |
46 |
in stable mode now, and as such, shouldn't get new features, only bug |
47 |
fixes. New features belong in the next version -- Reiser4. That works |
48 |
great when your product is a standalone product, but when it's part of the |
49 |
Linux kernel, it's no longer a standalone product. When that feature was |
50 |
added to the kernel, it was added to the kernel's file systems (where it |
51 |
made sense, obviously it doesn't with things like FAT, which are there |
52 |
primarily for MS compatibility). Reiser4 was nowhere /near/ ready, so |
53 |
reiser3, as part of the kernel, needed the update, but he refused to |
54 |
support the fs he'd contributed, so the work fell to others, and he |
55 |
opposed them every step of the way. |
56 |
|
57 |
The result of /that/ fiasco is that the kernel hackers are rather more |
58 |
demanding about the code meeting normal kernel code standards for |
59 |
readability and maintainability, because they expect they'll be the ones |
60 |
left doing the updates, when Hans Reiser is off doing the next big thing, |
61 |
and actively opposing updates that keep his contribution in step with the |
62 |
rest of the kernel. |
63 |
|
64 |
These two factors combined mean that every time reiser4 comes up for |
65 |
inclusion in the mainline kernel, there remain problems with it, problems |
66 |
Hans doesn't seem all that interested in fixing, as he's too busy |
67 |
insulting everyone trying to be helpful and point out what needs changed |
68 |
in ordered to fit the way the /rest/ of the kernel works. Fortunately, |
69 |
a couple of his employees aren't quite so hard headed, and while their |
70 |
boss is busy creating fireworks and more political resistance, these guys |
71 |
quietly make a list of the changes needed, do something about them, and |
72 |
eventually the package gets resubmitted for the next round, some progress |
73 |
having been made no thanks to Hans himself. Only this round, the kernel |
74 |
hackers are more antagonized than they were /last/ round, and the thing |
75 |
doesn't get much further, because after several rounds, Hans is correctly |
76 |
calling quite a bit of what they list (those still willing to work with |
77 |
him at all and not just turn it down without giving reason and therefore |
78 |
becoming a target for more of his insults) nit-picking. Well, that it may |
79 |
be, as compared to other submitters, but other submitters don't tend to be |
80 |
as antagonizing, and /do/ tend to be a bit more cooperative, so, what |
81 |
might be glossed over for them, ends up getting examined with a fine tooth |
82 |
comb, when it comes to anything Hans Reiser submits. |
83 |
|
84 |
So much for the political commentary... Anyway, to my knowledge, the only |
85 |
Gentoo packaged kernel that includes reiser4 is Andrew Morton's mm series, |
86 |
which has become what amounts to the development series, so is generally |
87 |
considered too unstable for most to run -- and certainly not normally |
88 |
recommended by Gentoo's devs, altho it's there, for those that /choose/ to |
89 |
run it anyway. |
90 |
|
91 |
You can of course do your own kernel and grub patching, if desired. A |
92 |
number of folks do so, or simply run the mm kernel and don't run reiser4 |
93 |
on /boot, so don't need those patches. |
94 |
|
95 |
The stability of both reiserfs and reiser4 continues to be called into |
96 |
question by many. As I said, I run reiserfs on everything, here, so I |
97 |
obviously think it's upto the task. My opinion is that while disaster |
98 |
recovery in the case of reiserfs can be more difficult and less reliable |
99 |
than with, say, ext3, the filesystem is in general stable enough that |
100 |
disaster recovery is rarely needed. Keep good backups, as you should be |
101 |
doing anyway, because disasters /do/ happen, and reiserfs works great! |
102 |
|
103 |
I'm not yet running reiser4, tho I've considered it. The main reason I'm |
104 |
not doing so here is only that I don't wish to complicate things, when I'm |
105 |
running reiserfs on everything, and running a straight mainline kernel |
106 |
(from kernel.org, not thru the portage tree, and often running the -rcs), |
107 |
now. If I ran reiser4, I'd definitely have to either do my own kernel |
108 |
patching, sometimes waiting to upgrade because the reiser4 patch won't |
109 |
apply to new versions, or switch off of mainline kernel. Additionally, |
110 |
I'd either have to decide reiser4 was stable enough to run on |
111 |
/everything/, or split my system between reiserfs and reiser4. Further, |
112 |
if I ran reiser4 on everything, I'd have to figure out what I was going to |
113 |
do with grub, in terms of patching it for reiser4. |
114 |
|
115 |
Thus, while I'd like to try reiser4, as long as it isn't in the mainline |
116 |
kernel, I'm really not likely to do so. Even then, I'd probably only run |
117 |
it on part of my system to begin with, likely /tmp and other non-critical |
118 |
stuff like the portage tree, which can always be redownloaded if it gets |
119 |
screwed up. For root, and my backup root-snapshot as well, along with |
120 |
/home and its snapshot, my media partitions and their backup, and the |
121 |
like, I'd stay with reiserfs, at least until I was decently comfortable |
122 |
with reiser4. |
123 |
|
124 |
So, what that all means is... you *CAN* run reiser4 if you decide you |
125 |
want to, but it's not going to be recommended any time soon either here or |
126 |
by Gentoo, and be prepared for some significant additional hassle if you |
127 |
/do/ decide to run it. |
128 |
|
129 |
That said, looking toward the future, when asked about reiser4 support, |
130 |
the response I've seen from the devs, is that they do plan on supporting |
131 |
it, when/if it gets added to the mainline kernel. (It would be when, if |
132 |
Hans Reiser wasn't as poor a people person as he seems to be, and most do |
133 |
seem to think it'll be added /eventually/, but given the situation, it's |
134 |
not the almost sure thing it likely would be otherwise, thus the "if".) |
135 |
|
136 |
Don't think I'm anti-Hans Reiser, or his filesystems, by any means! |
137 |
As I said, I run reiserfs everywhere, and I certainly wouldn't be |
138 |
doing so if I distrusted him or his solutions. It's just an unfortunate |
139 |
fact that he tends to make thing harder for himself than they'd otherwise |
140 |
be. Such facts... well, it's best to recognize them for what they are, |
141 |
instead of trying to deny that they exist. |
142 |
|
143 |
JMO, FWIW... |
144 |
|
145 |
-- |
146 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
147 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
148 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
149 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
150 |
|
151 |
|
152 |
-- |
153 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |