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

Re: ext3 vs reiserfs 3.6

MichaÅ? PaÅ?ka <michal.palka@poczta.fm> writes:

> On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:31 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> 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
>> work.
>> 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. 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
>> robust.
>> Personaly I use ext3 and never had problems on amd64.
> I'm quite surprised to hear all these bad opinions about reiserfs since
> I have never had any problems with it not caused by bad hardware.

Which is the norm rather than the exception.

> One thing that many people seem to be missing is the fact that their
> drives might have write-cache enabled. In that case, even journalling
> filesystems can be damaged by non-clean unmount if they don't handle the
> caching issues. Meta-data corruption in ext3 might be less visible
> because of the defensive layout of its structures.

Drives, especially the cheap kind, lie, cheat and have bugs. Again,
bad hardware is the norm not the exception.

Reiserfs has the big assumption that the hardware works perfect. Any
screwup there throws reiserfs totaly off track. Even just a power loss
causing the drive to stop a block write in the middle of a block.

Ext3 has a defensive layout of its structures, as you put it, to battle
such inconsistencies and still function even when the hardware does
screw up slightly. I think such robustness is essential.


Reply to: