| 1 |
Oliver Schad wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 schrieb mir Edward Muller: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> reiserfs, purely from the recovery angle. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yeah, if you have fuck up in the B-Trees, it's the best filesystem purely from |
| 8 |
> the rubbish heap's angle. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> regards |
| 11 |
> Oli |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Oli is correct. If reiser dies, the data is completely lost. It writes |
| 15 |
to the journal first, then writes the data. That, and when it decides to |
| 16 |
completely kill your B-Trees, you're screwed. After three unrecoverable |
| 17 |
reiserfs issues, I moved over to ext3 and have been very happy. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I personally think the speed differences on most production servers is |
| 20 |
negligible. At the end of the day, I'd much rather have my data intact |
| 21 |
than have it be X% faster in certain situations. Also, ext3 has quite a |
| 22 |
few configuration options to optimize for your particular needs. See |
| 23 |
/etc/mke2fs.conf for some example configurations. The main problem |
| 24 |
you'll have with ext3 is that you cannot change to things like the block |
| 25 |
size or number of inodes on-the-fly like you can with xfs. So make sure |
| 26 |
what you format with will suit your needs. The one other major strength |
| 27 |
of ext3 is that it is able to change to ext2 or ext4 without |
| 28 |
reformatting the partition. You cannot do this with reiser or any of the |
| 29 |
others. reiserfs3 is not compatible with reiserfs4 for example. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
And I've got to think that the NTFS comment was entirely sarcasm. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Wendall |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-server@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives