[Techtalk] filesystem options

Kristina Clair kclair at gmail.com
Sat Jan 8 02:04:20 EST 2005


Thanks for all the input!

I actually was warned against using reiserfs by someone else.  They
pointed out that all the development work was going into reiser4 now
and until that is stable, they wouldn't use reiserfs.

I have always used ext3 and have never had a problem with it, but I
would like to use something faster, and more importantly, something
capable of dealing with large disks.  Now if I could only figure out
why xfs_freeze locks up the machine and various quota commands
frequently hang...

Kristina

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:34:53 -0600, Peter Samuelson <peter at p12n.org> wrote:
> 
> [Kristina Clair]
> > Does anyone have any strong opinions for pros and cons of various
> > filesystems?  Particularly, for a hardware raid 5 1TB device which
> > will be used over nfs by high-traffic webservers.
> 
> I've not got much constructive to say (xfs is probably best for the
> job, but I don't have much personal experience with it), but I did want
> to say that reiserfs is only good if you keep good backups.  When it
> works it works well, but eventually something will go wrong and you'll
> be left having to run reiserfsck, which is not an enviable fate.
> 
> For years, the reiserfs fans have been saying "oh yes, it used to have
> stability problems, but that's all in the past now" and for those same
> years, I keep hearing anecdotes of filesystems getting ruined one way
> or another.  I myself was fairly lucky with reiserfs - I ran it for
> awhile somewhere and the worst that happened was that it crashed my
> kernel - I promptly replaced it with ext3 and never did lose data.
> 
> Maybe all the reiserfs problems really are fixed now, but, y'know,
> that's what they said in 2001.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Kristina Clair
Datarealm Internet Services
www.serve.com


More information about the Techtalk mailing list