| 1 |
Dadi wrote: |
| 2 |
> Regarding reiser, some friends of mine were telling me that it's notorious for |
| 3 |
> breaking files when unexpected things happen. Is this true? I mean I had my |
| 4 |
> share of trouble with reiser also on other harddisks but always lived with |
| 5 |
> the thought that it was a hardware problem more then a fs problem. Now it's |
| 6 |
> all coming together and starting to make sense. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
A lot of people like to blame ReiserFS for their problems. It seems that |
| 9 |
it did have reliability problems in the early days and since it is much |
| 10 |
younger than EXT2, these problems may be fresher in people's minds. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I have been using ReiserFS as my primary filesystem on all my machines |
| 13 |
for several years now. I have had some breakage, but most of it was |
| 14 |
connected to hardware problems and I was always able to fix the |
| 15 |
filesystem using the tools. In total, I've probably lost fewer than ten |
| 16 |
files. My experience doesn't suggest that ReiserFS is significantly less |
| 17 |
reliable than any other, though I haven't done careful tests. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I also ask what is resonable to expect from a filesystem in the face of |
| 20 |
hardware errors. As far as I know, all Linux filesystem drivers expect |
| 21 |
reliable media. Several of them do journaling, which may protect |
| 22 |
filesystem structure more than non-journaling ones, but doesn't |
| 23 |
necessarily protect the state of data since applications don't use |
| 24 |
transactions. To protect against hardware problems, you probably have to |
| 25 |
add redundancy, like with RAID-5. Also, remember that nothing can |
| 26 |
substitute for a good backup policy. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Jonathan Rogers |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives