[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

Of course it is quite likely reiserfs has gotten more stable in the
couple of years since I stopped using it.  I just don't think it has any
features that make me interested in trying it again.  Liek really, what
features does reiserfs have that I could possibly want that ext3 doesn't

Well, in Francesco's case, since he apparently already set up everything
with reiserfs, you should ask the opposite question: what does ext3 offer
that he doesn't have with the _current_ version of reiserfs? I haven't got
such a huge experience, but I had a few hardware failures on disks with
reiserfs, relatively recently, and the recovery tools performed quite well:
I only lost those data which had something to do with the damaged blocks,
all the rest was salvaged. So, in my personal book, the overwhelmingly large
majority of data losses were invariably due to hardware failures, and I did
not see any correlation between data losses and using reiserfs vs. ext3. My
recent personal statistics count ~10 broken hard disks over many computers
in the past 2 years. My only personal gripe with reiserfs is that it takes a
long time to mount large filesystems, but I do not mount/umount big
filesystems so frequently. If I were in Francesco's shoes, unless I had
other reasons for redoing everything, I would keep the working filesystem, be
it reiserfs or ext3, and start using his new system for quantum chemistry,
which I understand is what he wants to get to...

Just my 2¢...



Giacomo Mulas <gmulas@ca.astro.it>

Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA)

Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248     Fax : +39 070 71180 222
Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916

"When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are"
                         (Freddy Mercury)
Il messaggio e' stato analizzato alla ricerca di virus o
contenuti pericolosi da MailScanner, ed e'
risultato non infetto.

Reply to: