Re: Sarge with ext3, reiserfs (3/4?) or xfs?
hi ya
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> take ext3. ext3 is reliable, and doesn't hickup when there is a badblock
sure it does ... ext2 is underneath ext3... so its painful
and moreover, ext3 is subject to super long fsck when you hit the
power switch on 20GB or 200GB or 2TB or 20TB systems
xfs, jfs, reiserfs recovers faster/better than ext3 from
power off and resets
> . XFS, ReiserFS, etc are high end journaling systems, they all are good,
> but they are designed to run on raid,
nonsense ... :-) ... journaling is good if:
- you do NOT want to wait hrs for ext3 to format 2TB of disks
before you even get to mount it
- journalling is good if you suffer from an occasional
power off/reset due to hung systems for whatever reason
- journalling is good if you want a more reliable/fast
fs and willing to pay a little extra slowness than to
be stuck with the faster ext2 which is full of problems
- journalling has nothing to do with raid
i am all but given up on stability of reiserfs3 on 2.4 kernels
it doesn't survive certain test machines/environments
where as jfs seems to have survived
> where you don't see HW errors
> because the raid below handles them.
buy better disks if you have hw errors or better cables or
from better retail outlets
c ya
alvin
Reply to: