Re: Sarge with ext3, reiserfs (3/4?) or xfs?
hi ya clemens
sounds clamer :-)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> > reliable does nto necessarily mean its usable today...
> > it is close to 20 years old
>
> so is unix, etc, that doesn't make it bad? or?
nope it doesnt ..
> ext3/2 is very reliable
my point was a matter of sit and wait or use faster fs that does
not format the 2TB of disks while you're waiting ... i dont sit
around a machine and do other things.. i go from one fire to
antoher at another corp
i'm just tired of ext2/ext3 ... too slow to reboot and let
it do its fsck .. which i always require to let it do its
(sanity) self check
> and I trust it more than XFS (merged from an irix machine to a linux
there's been some rumblings in the ml about xfs being bad
but i havent run across those problems yet
> kernel with an special vfat layer to get it working) or ReiserFS (know
> bugs, denied by auther, no recover tools, claimed to be the best, but
> never was) or JFS (totaly unknown nobody seems to know it)
reiserfs recover tools needs some major work .. :-)
i haven't gotten into any problems with jfs yet ...
>
> I did. a 900GB RAID5, I had that with ext2 and then with ext3. worked fine.
try formatting with reiserfs, xfs, jfs .. and see which is better
when you have to be done in 30 min to do what you need to do and move on
> Nowadays I use XFS on that. Despite my above given statement, its not
> too bad. thought there are issues with SMP+XFS+NFS. But XFS has ACLs,
> quote and a very nice set of tools
separate problems when using multiple fs and combined with acls ...
> > i don't need to read ML.... i am a doer and make things work or
> > break um depending on who's paying
>
> well, you should read ...
i read when there's a pending job for the homework
> no, you statet that in your quote:
> - you do NOT want to wait hrs for ext3 to format 2TB of disks
> before you even get to mount it
i stand by that quote ... that it takes way way too long to format
> and thats not true. ext3 is journaling adn there is no need for a check
> of disks.
checking disks is nto the same probelm as formatting
and more importantly... ext3 does do its equivalent of fsck
whether you allow it to do so or if youturn if off is your option
i allow it to do its sanity self checks
> so what is quality in IDE nowadays. thats mass product, cheap and not
> reliable. thought I can't sat that for SCSI either. I had to disks die
> in the last week.
i'm saying i personally buy thousands of disks ...and i do NOT
have any problems in 5-10 years .. witht eh dumb exception
of the ibm deathstars
and 90% of the scsi disks are all dead withing 5 years
and that is NOT the case with old ide disks .. still working
- scsi disks dies, cause it runs hotter and spins
faster on its itty bitty ball bearings
c ya
alvin
Reply to: