| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 08:44 -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 2 |
> Marc wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The best part for simplicity is the RAID functionality is completely |
| 4 |
> > transparent to the server. It's running ReiserFS just like it were on a |
| 5 |
> > single drive, and could do the same with any file system. It just sees |
| 6 |
> > it as one device. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> ReiserFS...eating your data 6 drives at a time ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Now this just asks for a flamewar ... so I'll just state what I've seen. |
| 11 |
Not that it has to be representative, looks like everyone triggers |
| 12 |
different bugs :-) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
ext3: crap. dies under load. corrupts slowly but thoroughly. |
| 15 |
800G partition was unmountable before all data was copied in. |
| 16 |
Runs quite well if load is low, but under high load it tends to die |
| 17 |
horribly. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
xfs: fast. very fast. so fast that it forgets directories. |
| 20 |
Not funny when /etc/ just disappears every second mount. |
| 21 |
When /home/ disappeared I asked xfs to leave and not return until it |
| 22 |
behaves. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
reiser4: slower than reiser3, and anecdotal evidence points to a low |
| 25 |
durability (dies after ~72h) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
reiser3: fast. reliable. when it dies it just blows up, no agony or |
| 28 |
doubts there. I haven't had a reiser3 problem since 2000, so I declare |
| 29 |
it the winner of my endurance tests ;-) |
| 30 |
(the problems I had were pure hardware defects - VIA was very generous |
| 31 |
in making my data "dynamic") |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Now these are just my experiences. If you've had different filesystem |
| 34 |
crashes I won't say you're wrong, just that I've decided for me that |
| 35 |
reiser3 is better than the others (at least on x86) |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives