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

Re: Happy success with LVM and RAID

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 08:30:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 06:03:44PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > This juggling to keep all the balls (disks) in the air sounds familiar.
> > Non-partisan caution: before you settle on Reiserfs, read some recent
> > threads about Reiserfsck and Reiserfs vs JFS.  I went to JFS when
> > Reiserfsck fscked up my drives.  Never had a problem with JFS despite
> > many power failures.
> We made the choice for EXT3 ourselves, since it is the only filesystemm which
> can be grown online and shrinked offline, and reiserfs is not really a
> solution.
> JFS/XFS can be grown online, but not shrinked, so they are problematic.

Hi Sven,

I went from ext3 to reiserfs because of corruption after power failures.
Ditto reiserfs to JFS.  With JFS there have been no problems that I can
see.  Once I get my new system running etch stable, I'll put in one of
the comprehesive file integrity monitors (current computer doesn't have
the juice to do that __and__ get anything accomplished) so I get a
notice if anything goes missing.

Now that I'm using LVM I'll want that ability to grow.  But I doubt I'll
need to shrink.

I wish that there was a filesystem format that had built-in redundancy
for the data (not just the superblocks).  Its OK to have raid1 to
protect against drive failure, but it would be nice to have something be
a little more concerned about data integrity.  Reading all the docs, it
seems that all the fsck utils focus on getting the filesystem to a
mountable state; loss of data is a secondary concern.  

There was a long thread here recently looking at this in some detail.


Reply to: