Re: xfs file system - apparently for real men 8-)

[Bret Waldow <bwaldow@compuserve.com>]

Thanks for the tips.  Maybe you can help with this newbie question...

I have a Thinkpad, dual boot W2k & Linux.  I bought a second hard disk, 
identical to the one that came with the laptop, and a carrier for the 
Ultrabay.

My backup is: dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc

This works great, but I expect it's copying my (you guessed it) reiserfs 
partitions verbatim.

So I imagine if I wanted to reformat with different partition types, to 
restore I'd go in on an hdaX level, like hda5 = hdc5, but I can't do a 
byte for byte copy if I want to end up with a different fs type.

What command would work, please?  I figured I might need to answer this 
question some day, but maybe sooner is better.

Thanks in advance,
Bret

Daniel Pittman wrote:

>  
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2001, Bret Waldow wrote:
>
> > Alexander Clouter wrote:
> >
> >
> > > As for the XFS.....GOOD MAN :) None of that 'girly-man' reiserfs
> > > crud :)
> > > I'm running it too and everything is just peachy :)
> > Ok, I'll bite.  What's bad about reiser, or what's good about xfs?
> >
> > Seriously, if there's something serious there - inquiring minds and
> > all that...
>
> Well, personally I use ext3, and I wouldn't let ReiserFS near anything
> that I cared about. Heck, I even look suspiciously at the sources... ;)
>
> Seriously, though, I really wouldn't advise ReiserFS to anyone, at least
> not for a year or two. The reasons are:
>
> 1) static fsck tool /very/ poor[1]
> 2) bi-monthly "ReiserFS ate my filesystem" posts on linux-kernel
> 3) semi-regular "ReiserFS needs this patch to not die in situation X"
>    posts on same.
> 4) "Just run reiserfsck --rebuild-tree to make sure it keeps working..."
> 5) Performances falls on the floor one the FS is > 90% full, on average.
> 6) Only journals meta-data.
>
> It's got some *great* ideas in it, and it's really well supported by the
> people who are developing it. I have a great deal of respect for them,
> don't get me wrong.
>
> I just think that they made a mistake building fsck second and I
> (personally, and I am paranoid) like journaled data.
>
>
> The stability of it has never been sufficient for me. It seems to be an
> endless treadmill of fix after fix after fix, each removing an
> occasional data corruption bug.
>
> Heck, tail packing spend over a year where they had corruption of files
> regularly. It /looks/ stable now, a year later, because no one has
> reported a bug in the area for a few months -- but do you believe that?
>
>         Daniel
>
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  Every single time I looked at it. I have not done so for, like,
>      three months. If it's great now, someone correct me, please. :)