[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: reiserfs, xfs, ext2, ext3
    Alan Cox wrote:

    > > that reiserfs has had lots of bugs, and is marked as experimental in kernel
    > > 2.4.4. Not to mention that the people of RH discourage there users from using
    > > it.
    > At the time Red Hat 7.1 was mastered Reiserfs was not stable. The reiserfs in
    > the RH kernel has some of the tail fixes but newer ones are not present. Also
    > it had other problems then: the fsck tool was useless, it didnt work on
    > big endian machines (eg PPC, S/390).
    > If Hans sent me a patch removing the experimental tag from Reiserfs the only
    > thing that would make me hesitate the slightest from applying it would be the
    > endianness thing, and thats not enough to stop it being applied.

    Jeff Mahoney has a patch in progress for this, he currently has the kernel code
    working, but needs to do the utilities. I would hesitate to put the endianness
    fixes in before 2.5.1 just because I am conservative about disturbing stable code.

    There exists one known bug which one user has hit which required a major code
    change to fix. We are now testing the code, and are in the ironic situation
    of hesitating to merge in a bug fix out of fear that the bugfix code is large and
    untested, and it might have bugs that more than one user will hit.:-/
    I think we are going to make the new code an option until it has been
    extensively tested.

    I think that 2.4.4 is stable, and I say this based upon us getting lots of users
    hardware bugs and none with bugs not fixed in 2.4.4 in the entire time since 2.4.4
    was released.

    > > There has also been lots of talks about reiserfs being the cause of some data
    > > lose and performance lose (not sure about this last one).
    > If you are running 2.4.4/2.4.4-ac/2.4.5pre I believe all the relevant reiserfs
    > patches are applied. The new fsck seems to work a lot better too. The limiters
    > right now are:
    > - You need a patch for NFS (its on their site no big deal)
    > - You can only use little endian boxes (x86 for you so ok)

    you also need a patch for quotas.

    > > I think that the data lose is not significant in a proxy cache, if the FS is
    > > really fast, as is said reiserfs is.

    you can ask nikita for a copy of reiserfs_raw, a version of reiserfs designed for
    squid. It is substantially faster.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.022 / U:12.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site