Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Thursday 14 June 2001 15:31, Marc Haber wrote:
> <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
> >One significant benefit of ReiserFS is that it is journalled and does
> > not require a lengthy fsck operation after a power failure.
>
> However, if the journal gets corrupted, you are in for serious
> trouble, because Hans Reiser didn't plan this to happen and didn't
> write any fsck code. I have seen this happening, with severe data
That is offensive.
There has been a reiserfsck program for quite some time (long before it
was included in standard kernels or in common use). There have been
problems with the fsck program, but they are getting fixed.
> loss. AFAIK, there is now a "third party ReiserFS fsck", but I never
> actually tried it.
I have not heard of any such program, I am on the ReiserFS list, and I am
known for testing out various ReiserFS things. So if there was such a
program then I am sure I would have heard of it.
I expect that you are getting confused with a bad-blocks program that has
been written. Currently ReiserFS has no support for detecting bad blocks
on hard drives, this is because most hardware that is in use will never
develop bad sectors. As an example I recently had a read error on a 1.5
year old IDE hard drive. I ran "cat /dev/zero > /dev/hdc" and the
problem was gone for good.
For most people there is no need to have a file system handle bad blocks.
I have been using Linux since 1993, currently I run 9 Linux machines (the
number varies), and I have never had a bad block on a hard drive on a
Linux machine with one exception - a client received a bad shipment of
hard drives that died under Linux, no bad block detection would save
them, and incidentally they were running Ext2.
> Additionally, ReiserFS has some issues that shouldn't be present in a
> modern FS (for example, it is not 64 bit clean, as I am told).
You mean there are issues with the Alpha and UltraSPARC ports?
Personally I don't care as SPARC is slow and expensive, and I don't do
the things that Alpha is good at (floating point).
Files larger than 2G in size work well for me on ReiserFS. Apparently
kernel 2.4.5 has a bug that limits ReiserFS to 4G (not sure if it's a
kernel bug or a ReiserFS bug). Kernel 2.4.4 apparently allows larger
files.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: