In this text:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...tml#journaling
it is proven xfs's superiority over ReiserFS in the cas of unexpected reboot.

Is this, in Your opinion, true?
Wich filesystem ensures bigger stability and data security (in prevention of
data loss)?

--
Adrian

Adrian wrote:

>Wich filesystem ensures bigger stability and data security (in prevention of
>data loss)?
>
>
We've never had a data loss due to filesystem problems using reiserfs.
Some years ago we had some crashes on the filesystem (mostly due to
hardware failures like defect fans on the nortbridge or broken RAM), but
everytime a rebuild-reiserfs did the trick, and _never_ data get lost.
But now, we do'nt even have this crashes any more. Reiserfs is very
stable and fast in my opinion and is highly recommended from my side.
On the other side i've no experences using xfs...

HTH,
Jan

On 2003-12-06, Adrian wrote:
> Is this, in Your opinion, true?
> Wich filesystem ensures bigger stability and data security (in prevention of
> data loss)?

I used to use ReiserFS all the time with Gentoo until I had a few
unexpected reboots and problems with power. Every time power went out
(even on the UPS) there would be severe data loss, sometimes it'd even
be so bad that I have to do a complete reinstall. After getting tired of
ReiserFS's *little* quirks, I switched to XFS. Switching from ReiserFS
to XFS, IMO was a good choice seeing as how I've had an instance when my
computer just rebooted; no data loss or reinstall need with XFS.

I also hear XFS is a lot better for bigger files (great if you run some
sort of server, FTP specifically), while ReiserFS is best for smaller
files. Though this could only be here say that I've read on
forums.gentoo.org.

--
surtin | "It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's
OoOooOOo -o) | in trouble." -- Rocky and Bullwinkle
/\ |
_\_v |

Adrian wrote:

> Is this, in Your opinion, true?
> Wich filesystem ensures bigger stability and data security (in prevention
> of data loss)?

I've had cases of unrecoverable errors with XFS, never with ReiserFS.
However, it is strongly recommended to use at least kernel version 2.4.18
(gentoo comes with 2.4.20, so no sweat there).

Anno

surtin wrote:
> Every time power went out (even on the UPS) there would be severe data
> loss, sometimes it'd even be so bad that I have to do a complete
> reinstall.

Well that's the problem, everyone tells you something different. I for one
have not had too much trouble with reiserfs myself, though I have had it
mixing files contents the metadata was always ok. Just doesn't work if you
xmms.m3u is filled with the contents of that file you last edited

> Switching from ReiserFS to XFS, IMO was a good choice seeing as how I've
> had an instance when my computer just rebooted; no data loss or reinstall
> need with XFS.

Well I had the computer hang itself when I had my homedir on XFS (was not
due to xfs) and when I rebooted half of the files in my homedir were filled
with binary NULLs. The FAQ on XFS stated that this is normal to happen.


Just my $0.02

Adrian <adrn@wp.pl> wrote:
> In this text:
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...tml#journaling
> it is proven xfs's superiority over ReiserFS in the cas of unexpected reboot.
> Is this, in Your opinion, true?
> Wich filesystem ensures bigger stability and data security (in prevention of
> data loss)?

Past experience says both systems are reasonably robust, but neither, in
practice, has been as reliable for me as ext3.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. That's the only way
to be sure." -- Ripley, _Aliens_