On Tuesday 18 July 2006 16:15, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Francesco Pietra <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > When installing the OS I thought that the most recent fs (reiserfs 3.6)
> > were the most secure. Actually I have reiserfs on i386 (no raid) with no
> > problem. Anyway, probably a warning against reiserfs on the installation
> > disk or manual would avoid much troubles to users and advicers.
> > Thanks a lot
> > francesco pietra
> The most recent FS is generaly the one with the most unfound bugs left
> and often a lot of design kinks that remain to be fixed.
> Something like ext2 on the other hand has all the bugs and kinks
> worked out over the years and there is very little new code that could
> go wrong.
I was aware of this principle. However, principles are never absolute.
Reiserfs 3.6 was offered at the Debian installation without warnings and I
took it for good (I had also a long positive experience with reiserfs on
i386, to my excuse). But the matter with amd64 may be more complex than it
appears from the filesystems: I got a kernel (the last one from Debian) dump
twice (reported here) while computing with mpqc, and it had nothing to do
with hackers. In both cases the kernel was recovered with a reinstall, which
did not take anything from repositories. I am also still wondering why I
get /lib32 while I am installing a few things that supposedly require
only /lib64. I got the naive impression that Debian amd64 is not mature for
running mpqc. Luckily, the last useful computation can be easily recovered
(until the HD allows so).