Re: ext3 vs reiserfs 3.6
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:12:43AM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Weird! That's supposed to be the very thing reiserfs *is* good at.
No actually reiserfs is rather fragile since it has essentially no
redundancy in the meta data, unlike ext2/ext3 which have redundant
superblocks and such. I have had major file corruption with reiserfs
3.6 when a system was turned of in the middle of a write, since (at
least at the time) reiserfs would journal the meta data changes, and
then just start overwriting the old contents of the file, and at boot it
would update the meta data from the journal, and you end up with a
partially updated file. ext3 on the other hand gives you either the
version prior to the write, or the completely updated version, at least
in my experience. I imagine with larger writes with some programs even
ext3's ordered mode can't help you.