1 |
On Tuesday 14 May 2002 10:52 am, Mark Bainter wrote: |
2 |
> Jean-Michel Smith [jsmith@××××.com] wrote: |
3 |
> > Reiserfs is NOT ready for production use, and the gentoo FAQ is both wise |
4 |
> > and friendly for pointing that out and guiding people away from that |
5 |
> > particular folly. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I just can't agree. What exactly is your required time frame for running |
8 |
> reiserfs with no problems before you think it's stable? I personally have |
9 |
> been running reiserfs on my systems since before it was even merged into |
10 |
> the mainline kernel. I work the hell out of my systems and I've never had |
11 |
> a problem. |
12 |
|
13 |
First, I've had resier lose data on systems that were running fine, i.e. were |
14 |
NOT shut down improperly, or suffered a kernel hang, or any other sort of |
15 |
disruption that one could reasonably expect would lead to filesystem |
16 |
corruption. |
17 |
|
18 |
In all the years I've been using GNU/Linux (since 1993) I have never seen this |
19 |
on ext2. Nor have I seen it on XFS (which I have been using for over 3 years |
20 |
now on several production boxes). I have not seen it happen with JFS or |
21 |
ext3, though admittedly I haven't used either of those two nearly as |
22 |
extensively as I have ext2 and XFS. |
23 |
|
24 |
So, in answer to your first question, I require that a filesystem NOT |
25 |
spontaneously lose or corrupt data, or mysteriously delete entire directory |
26 |
trees with no apparent cause. To date all of the filesystems I have tried |
27 |
have met this rather modest standard, with the exception of Reiser, which has |
28 |
failed it dramatically. |
29 |
|
30 |
Now, if you shut down a buffered filesystem improperly then yes, you should |
31 |
expect filesystem corruption to occur (though most of the time you will get |
32 |
lucky and be fine). Even there, I've not had filesystem corruption problems |
33 |
with either XFS or JFS (though data can and does get lost/corrupted when the |
34 |
power is interrupted in this fashion). ext3 the verdict is still out on |
35 |
(I've only been playing with it on one machine ... thus far no problems but |
36 |
more testing is required to be certain). |
37 |
|
38 |
I've got GNU/Linux systems running as routers that have uptimes measured in |
39 |
hundreds of days (one of them for 460 days last I checked), with never a |
40 |
disruption or spontaneous filesystem going corrupt (they are using ext2). |
41 |
Every single reiserfs installation I had (6 or 7 IIRC) had corrupt |
42 |
filesystems that were unrecoverable within 6 months ... despite having never |
43 |
been improperly shut down or otherwise mistreated in a fashion that would |
44 |
lead one to expect, or accpet, such behavior. |
45 |
|
46 |
Based on this experience I do not consider Reiserfs at all safe to deploy. |
47 |
XFS is safe, as long as you're not aggressively hacking the kernel (it is |
48 |
intrusive, so mucking about with other kenel hacks can affect its |
49 |
reliability. For this reason, if you're using XFS you should stick to stock |
50 |
kernels to which only the XFS patch has been applied IMHO). JFS also appears |
51 |
to be very safe. Ext2 is very safe, as long as you treat it properly (do not |
52 |
shutdown improperly, and keep on a UPS if there is a concern about power |
53 |
reliability), or turn buffering off (this will slow it down, but make it safe |
54 |
even in error prone situations, such as working with unstable, experimental |
55 |
kernels or a buggy X installatino). Ext3 appears to be ok, but I haven't |
56 |
used it enough to know that with certainty. I tend to treat my ext3 |
57 |
installation as an ext2 filesystem, so I haven't really put the journalling |
58 |
to a thorough test yet. |
59 |
|
60 |
Reiser comes nowhere near being as safe or stable as these alternatives (with |
61 |
the possible exception of ext3 which I need to do more testing with). |
62 |
|
63 |
Jean. |