lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 19:32 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
    > On Mon, 2006-07-31 18:44:33 +0200, Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@edsons.demon.nl> wrote:
    > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
    > > > On Mon, 2006-07-31 17:59:58 +0200, Adrian Ulrich
    > > > <reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> wrote:
    > > > > A colleague of mine happened to create a ~300gb filesystem and started
    > > > > to migrate Mailboxes (Maildir-style format = many small files (1-3kb))
    > > > > to the new LUN. At about 70% the filesystem ran out of inodes; Not a
    > > >
    > > > So preparation work wasn't done.
    > >
    > > Of course you are right. Preparation work was not fully done. And using
    > > ext1 would also have been possible. I suspect you are still using ext1,
    > > cause with proper preparation it is perfectly usable.
    >
    > Oh, and before people start laughing at me, here are some personal or
    > friend's experiences with different filesystems:
    >
    > * reiser3: A HDD containing a reiser3 filesystem was tried to be
    > booted on a machine that fucked up DMA writes. Fortunately, it
    > crashed really soon (right after going for read-write.) After
    > rebooting the HDD on a sane PeeCee, it refused to boot. Starting
    > off some rescue system showed an _empty_ root filesystem.
    >
    > * A friend's XFS data partition (portable USB/FireWire HDD) once
    > crashed due to being hot-unplugged off the USB. The in-kernel XFS
    > driver refused to mount that thing again, and the tools also
    > refused to fix any errors. (Don't ask, no details at my hands...)
    >
    > * JFS just always worked for me. Though I've never ever had a broken
    > HDD where it (or it's tools) could have shown how well-done they
    > were, so from a crash-recovery point of view, it's untested.
    >
    > * Being a regular ext3 user, I had lots of broken HDDs containing
    > ext3 filesystems. For every single case, it has been easy fixing
    > the filesystem after cloning. Just _once_, fsck wasn't able to fix
    > something, so I did it manually with some disk editor. This worked
    > well because the on-disk data structures are actually as simple as
    > they are.
    >
    > ext3 always worked well for me, so why should I abandon it?
    >
    > MfG, JBG

    I've lost EXT2 and EXT3 filesystems from machines with no bad hardware
    (power loss during writes).

    I've recovered all but a handful of files from a RAID-5 array running
    ReiserFS v3 that had two drives fail in rapid succession with bad
    sectors.

    Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not.

    --Dan

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-31 19:51    [W:0.028 / U:32.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site