Re: ext3 vs reiserfs 3.6
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:31:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Giacomo Mulas <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> >> Since I changed from reiserfs 3.6 to ext3 with debian etch amd64, the system
> >> no more suffered any crash, after days of running a very heavy computation
> >> with mpqc 2.3.1 with thread command for two dual opterons and 8 GB ram. The
> >> computation has now ended to full convergence. That was the most stressing
> >> action of memory I could conceive.
> > Would you be able to put together and make available a simple script with
> > such a stress test for other people to try? Especially if you know that it
> > consistently crashes your previous setup. I, for one, am curious, since I
> > have 7 rock stable amd64 machines happily crunching numbers with (other)
> > quantum chemistry applications and using reiserfs. None of them is SMP
> > though.
> > Bye
> > Giacomo
> We (at my workplace) have lots of them, smp and not, with reiserfs and
> they don't usualy crash. They do crash a lot when we get new ones
> untill we weed out all the bad ram and such but after that the
> majority runs stable. The rest we swap cpu or the mainboard till they
> We still do have problems with reiserfs every now and then
> though. Having power getting cut from nodes without proper shutdown
> seems to be a problem for reiserfs.
Weird! That's supposed to be the very thing reiserfs *is* good at.
> On reboot the syslogd hangs for
> ages unless /var is reformated. Recently I convinced my boss to switch
> to another filesystem but we still have to test crash (e.g. pull the
> power every 5 minutes) the different FSes a lot to see which is most
I'd be interested in the results of your tests.
> Personaly I use ext3 and never had problems on amd64.
And I'm using reiser and having problems on my AMD64.
I guess that's another thing for me to try, though my problems seem to
be X server-related.