Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote:
> On Monday 26 September 2005 05:42 pm, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brendan wrote:
> > > > /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few other oddities (certianly not /home,
> > > > /srv, /usr, /var or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3
> > > > there for safety.
> > >
> > > I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact?
> >
> > Because it has made my life MUCH easier over the five or so big disk
> > crashes on small servers without RAID I have been through. Because it made
> > my life much easier while trying to switch filesystems, or moving systems
> > to RAID1 on-line with minimum downtime. Because of quotas. Because system
> > performance seems to be better with some filesystems if I segregate the big
> > stuff (/home and others) from the small stuff (/usr, /...). Because I can
> > use different filesystems and filesystem mount options according to what is
> > in each partition (and I do just that)... and the list goes on.
>
> I was talking about how you present ext3 as the best option, as opposed to
> reiserfs.
Ah, ok. I mixed two opinions into one. I'd use ext3 for / because its
repair tools have one of the best track record I know of, and it is sane and
safe on almost all kernels in production. I might be persuaded to try
reiser3 for /, but it would matter little for performance of the box as a
whole, and it is very, very unlikely that reiser3 would be safer than ext3
(it might be as safe as, though).
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: