* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 17:57 ` Paul Hartman
@ 2008-11-25 18:37 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 18:57 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
` (2 more replies)
2008-11-25 19:01 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 3 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-25 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
>>>> I wouldn't use XFS unless
>>>> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it
>>>> does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I
>>>> had to reinstall from scratch.
>>> Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that
>>> you had such problems?
>> Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of
>> having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire
>> was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or
>> so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2.
>>
>> I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It
>> did the check thing but ran fine.
>>
>> Just my experience. Your mileage may vary.
> I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will
> never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file
> server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over
> and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser,
> I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.)
>
> I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about
> every filesystem.
I use reiserfs and I twice got serious filesystem corruptions after
crashes, and one was very serious. It is unclear whether this was
reiserfs's fault or the hardware. You see, I was using athcool to save
electricity, and it seems that when the bit "Disconnect enable when
STPGNT detected" is set on the Northbridge (this is what athcool does)
and you are using a PixelView PV-M4900 FM.RC (specially if you are
recording tv - with mencoder - as opposed to just viewing it - with
mplayer), your computer malfunctions.
I was able to recover much of the data with reiserfsck --rebuild-tree,
but some of the files had part of their content replaced with a string
of null bytes. I heard somewhere that reiserfs is infamous for
replacing file content with a string of null bytes, so maybe this is
indeed reiserfs fault, and not just bad hardware.
By the way, I chose reiserfs (some 3 years ago I believe) because of
its speed fame, but now, thinking of it, there are only four computer
activities that make my system slow:
1) launch heavy programs such as firefox (when not in cache)
2) compile software
3) view certain web pages in firefox
4) encode video
Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means
mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than
ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and
the root partition is only 7% used?
So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of
being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support
than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose
ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable).
--
Software is like sex: it is better when it is free - Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 18:37 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-25 18:57 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:26 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-26 9:22 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-25 19:07 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 20:34 ` Alan McKinnon
2 siblings, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-25 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
> filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
> bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
> also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means
> mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than
> ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and
> the root partition is only 7% used?
>
> So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of
> being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support
> than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose
> ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable).
Oh, and according to this benchmark
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 18:57 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-25 19:26 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-26 9:29 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-26 9:22 ` Joerg Schilling
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2008-11-25 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
> > filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
> > bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
> > also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means
> > mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than
> > ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and
> > the root partition is only 7% used?
> >
> > So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of
> > being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support
> > than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose
> > ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable).
>
> Oh, and according to this benchmark
> http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
> reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
they tested crap.
As I wrote in the other mail. XFS and reiserfs turn on barriers by default,
ext3 turns them off.
With barriers on for ext3 it looses 30%(!). reiserfs and xfs don't suffer as
much, but suffer they do. So if the test did not turn on or off barriers for
all fs who support them, ext3 had an unfair advantage.
And you want barriers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:26 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-26 9:29 ` Joerg Schilling
0 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Joerg Schilling @ 2008-11-26 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > Oh, and according to this benchmark
> > http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
> > reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
>
> they tested crap.
>
> As I wrote in the other mail. XFS and reiserfs turn on barriers by default,
> ext3 turns them off.
> With barriers on for ext3 it looses 30%(!). reiserfs and xfs don't suffer as
> much, but suffer they do. So if the test did not turn on or off barriers for
> all fs who support them, ext3 had an unfair advantage.
>
> And you want barriers.
I am not sure what you call "barriers"....
ext3 slows down by 400% if you call fsync(2) after copying single files.
UFS on Solaris slows down by 10% only because UFS has been optimized for best
speed _and_ best data integrity.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 18:57 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:26 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-26 9:22 ` Joerg Schilling
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Joerg Schilling @ 2008-11-26 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
"Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto" <please.no.spam.here@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and according to this benchmark
> http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
> reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
The ext filesystem is slow if you meter the right times.
If you e.g. untar a linux kernel tarball and just take the time
GNU tar runs, you have a time but you don't know the related action!
If you do this, disk I/O (with a few exceptions) will typically start
after GNU tar exited.
If you like to compare, you could either use star (that by default calls
fsync(2) on avery single file after extracting) or pull the power cord
after GNU tar finished and then check after a reboot ;-) On a ext filesystem,
star extracts 4x slower in default mode compared to star -no-fsync
I have no times for reiserfs, but it may be that the numbers look completely
different if you get a time for a known action.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 18:37 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 18:57 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-25 19:07 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-26 9:24 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-25 20:34 ` Alan McKinnon
2 siblings, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2008-11-25 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> I was able to recover much of the data with reiserfsck --rebuild-tree,
> but some of the files had part of their content replaced with a string
> of null bytes. I heard somewhere that reiserfs is infamous for
> replacing file content with a string of null bytes, so maybe this is
> indeed reiserfs fault, and not just bad hardware.
no, that is xfs.
> So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of
> being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support
> than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose
> ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable).
reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a
lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care
about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:07 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:40 ` KH
` (3 more replies)
2008-11-26 9:24 ` Joerg Schilling
1 sibling, 4 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-25 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
> reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a
> lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care
> about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%.
I read an article about that, and if I recall correctly the assumption
was that the likelihood of data loss occurring due to the barriers
issue was negligible. I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
usage), no?
Somewhat offtopic:
What do you suggest for me? I care about data safety, but am too lazy
to make frequent backups, so filesystem robustness and availability of
data recovery tools is pretty important; and as I said before, the
only performance problem with my computer that I think may be related
to filesystem is boot time and launching heavy programs not in cache;
keep in mind my root partition is only 3,8 GB used and 93% free -
maybe in this condition the filesystem is not stressed and only the
actual HD speed matters? Valerie Henson from VAH Consulting says that
every file system goes fast with:
* O(1000) files per directory
* File size a few KB to a few GB
* Read-mostly access
* Infrequent file creation/deletion
* Sequential file read/write patterns
* Shallow directory depth (< 10 levels)
* Total file system size O(100 GB)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-25 19:40 ` KH
2008-11-25 20:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: KH @ 2008-11-25 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb:
> I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
>
Most people and companies / organisations use M$ Windows. Would you say
that this is saver than your Linux? You are outnumbered for sure ;-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:40 ` KH
@ 2008-11-25 20:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 20:19 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 20:40 ` [gentoo-user] " Alan McKinnon
2008-11-25 22:07 ` William Kenworthy
3 siblings, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2008-11-25 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower
> > but a lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs
> > don't care about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance
> > goes down by 30%.
>
> I read an article about that, and if I recall correctly the assumption
> was that the likelihood of data loss occurring due to the barriers
> issue was negligible. I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
fedora turns on 4k stack - well knowing that it kills xfs. Do you want to
rephrase your question?
>
> Somewhat offtopic:
> What do you suggest for me? I care about data safety, but am too lazy
> to make frequent backups, so filesystem robustness and availability of
> data recovery tools is pretty important;
so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a cronjob
write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 20:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-25 20:19 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 20:58 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 21:11 ` [gentoo-user] " James
0 siblings, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-25 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
>> [...] I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
>> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
>> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
>> usage), no?
>
> fedora turns on 4k stack - well knowing that it kills xfs. Do you want to
> rephrase your question?
Well, I said I have little expertise. Won't argue.
>>
>> Somewhat offtopic:
>> What do you suggest for me? I care about data safety, but am too lazy
>> to make frequent backups, so filesystem robustness and availability of
>> data recovery tools is pretty important;
>
> so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a cronjob
> write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure.
I live in Brasil, and due to huge taxes, poor infrastructure and the
currency exchange ratio, computer stuff is far more expensive than in
the US. And then you have to factor that the average Brazilian is much
poorer than the average US citizen.
But anyway, I know I must make backups, but I still want a robust
filesystem with good software support (such as data recovery
utilities). Could you give me your suggestion for the safest
filesystem for a desktop user that only uses 3,8G of his 54G root
partition? I care about speed, but I think that my usage pattern does
not stress the filesystem (if what Valerie Henson says is true).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 20:19 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-25 20:58 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 21:11 ` [gentoo-user] " James
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2008-11-25 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Dienstag 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a
> > cronjob write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure.
>
> I live in Brasil, and due to huge taxes, poor infrastructure and the
> currency exchange ratio, computer stuff is far more expensive than in
> the US.
it is more expensive in europe too ;)
> And then you have to factor that the average Brazilian is much
> poorer than the average US citizen.
and because of that I talked about dlt. A nice, used dlt 35/70 will work for
another couple of years, is not very expensive (anymore), and very robust.
>
> But anyway, I know I must make backups, but I still want a robust
> filesystem with good software support (such as data recovery
> utilities). Could you give me your suggestion for the safest
> filesystem for a desktop user that only uses 3,8G of his 54G root
> partition? I care about speed, but I think that my usage pattern does
> not stress the filesystem (if what Valerie Henson says is true).
xfs, reiserfs, ext3 all work fine. I would stay away from xfs with unstable
electricity. I would also stay away from jfs, because almost nobody uses it.
I have used reiserfs in the past, I am using reiser4 now. But I don't
recommend r4. It is working great for ME. But that doesn't mean that it is the
right choice for anybody else.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 20:19 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 20:58 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-25 21:11 ` James
2008-11-25 21:15 ` Joerg Schilling
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: James @ 2008-11-25 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto <please.no.spam.here <at> gmail.com> writes:
> But anyway, I know I must make backups, but I still want a robust
> filesystem with good software support (such as data recovery
> utilities). Could you give me your suggestion for the safest
> filesystem for a desktop user that only uses 3,8G of his 54G root
> partition? I care about speed, but I think that my usage pattern does
> not stress the filesystem (if what Valerie Henson says is true).
reiserfs, Never lost anything.....I could not recover across dozens of
systems.....
ymmv
Backups.
get a usb stick and manually copy your stuff to it, periodically.
safe and cheap. Don't bother backing up the operating system as it
can be re-created. /etc is a good idea and a few other key files
and your personal files....
ymmv.
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:11 ` [gentoo-user] " James
@ 2008-11-25 21:15 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-25 21:35 ` Alan McKinnon
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Joerg Schilling @ 2008-11-25 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Backups.
>
> get a usb stick and manually copy your stuff to it, periodically.
Where do you get these 1 TB USB sticks?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:15 ` Joerg Schilling
@ 2008-11-25 21:35 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-25 21:43 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-26 9:16 ` Stroller
2008-11-26 0:00 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-26 9:18 ` Stroller
2 siblings, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-25 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 23:15:27 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Backups.
> >
> > get a usb stick and manually copy your stuff to it, periodically.
>
> Where do you get these 1 TB USB sticks?
To be fair, he was responding to a parent that asked about backing up 3.8G of
data, so USB sticks are not unfeasible. Until they get lost that is.
Personally, I'm very interested in seeing where Intel go with their new SSDs.
The reason is that I'm getting sick and tired of having to explain and
justify why the laws of physics prevent my girlfriend from being able to
backup her 5T banking warehouse on the schedule the law of the country would
like her to. There's a solution, but it's hackish and ugly and involves
extremely careful management of LVM snapshots. This is simply way too much
admin effort for what should really be a simple incremental backup process.
And let's not even get into what restores involve
Let's face it, disks only spin so fast and Moore's law does not apply to disk
and tape speed. Vastly improving the first half - drive speed - is a huge
first step in the right direction.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:35 ` Alan McKinnon
@ 2008-11-25 21:43 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-25 22:06 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-26 9:16 ` Stroller
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Joerg Schilling @ 2008-11-25 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 November 2008 23:15:27 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Backups.
> > >
> > > get a usb stick and manually copy your stuff to it, periodically.
> >
> > Where do you get these 1 TB USB sticks?
>
> To be fair, he was responding to a parent that asked about backing up 3.8G of
> data, so USB sticks are not unfeasible. Until they get lost that is.
>
> Personally, I'm very interested in seeing where Intel go with their new SSDs.
Two weeks ago, I did some tests with a SSD (ZFS and UFS) and it is really
promising.
They still have "seek times" but much smaller than rotating media.
ZFS behaves (as expected) much better on SSD than UFS.
ZFS even supports (or will soon support) to add separate SSDs as write cache and
as meta data cache.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:43 ` Joerg Schilling
@ 2008-11-25 22:06 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-25 22:11 ` Joerg Schilling
0 siblings, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-25 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 23:43:34 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I'm very interested in seeing where Intel go with their new
> > SSDs.
>
> Two weeks ago, I did some tests with a SSD (ZFS and UFS) and it is really
> promising.
That's what Linux said on his blog too. They just worked and worked well and
impressed him technically with no silly rotating media characteristics
carried over to SSD. Which is a refreshing change indeed
> They still have "seek times" but much smaller than rotating media.
> ZFS behaves (as expected) much better on SSD than UFS.
> ZFS even supports (or will soon support) to add separate SSDs as write
> cache and as meta data cache.
I think I need to investigate this deeper and do a write-up for work. I have a
FreeBSD-7 deployment system (nothing for OpenSolaris) so I'll use that. Any
comment on ZFS performace/stability on FreeBSD?
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:35 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-25 21:43 ` Joerg Schilling
@ 2008-11-26 9:16 ` Stroller
2008-11-26 19:03 ` Alan McKinnon
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Stroller @ 2008-11-26 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On 25 Nov 2008, at 21:35, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ...
> Personally, I'm very interested in seeing where Intel go with their
> new SSDs.
> The reason is that I'm getting sick and tired of having to explain and
> justify why the laws of physics prevent my girlfriend from being
> able to
> backup her 5T banking warehouse on the schedule the law of the
> country would
> like her to. There's a solution, but it's hackish and ugly and
> involves
> extremely careful management of LVM snapshots. This is simply way
> too much
> admin effort for what should really be a simple incremental backup
> process.
Sounds like you want ZFS.
On Solaris.
On a little dedicated box which exports space via NFS.
Stroller.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 9:16 ` Stroller
@ 2008-11-26 19:03 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-27 9:18 ` Anthony Metcalf
0 siblings, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-26 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 11:16:51 Stroller wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2008, at 21:35, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > ...
> > Personally, I'm very interested in seeing where Intel go with their
> > new SSDs.
> > The reason is that I'm getting sick and tired of having to explain and
> > justify why the laws of physics prevent my girlfriend from being
> > able to
> > backup her 5T banking warehouse on the schedule the law of the
> > country would
> > like her to. There's a solution, but it's hackish and ugly and
> > involves
> > extremely careful management of LVM snapshots. This is simply way
> > too much
> > admin effort for what should really be a simple incremental backup
> > process.
>
> Sounds like you want ZFS.
> On Solaris.
> On a little dedicated box which exports space via NFS.
No can do :-)
But I didn't give you the full story. Those 5TB are stored in a column-based
database on a raw device. The current setup is in production, in a commercial
bank and is already delivering aggregated analytical data to the users. When
I say "users" you should read "actuaries that determine the bank's business
direction for the next several years"
Microsoft will ditch Windows and fully embrace OSS long before that lot will
entertain the mere idea of a platform change :-)
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:15 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-25 21:35 ` Alan McKinnon
@ 2008-11-26 0:00 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-26 14:26 ` Florian Philipp
2008-11-26 9:18 ` Stroller
2 siblings, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Backups.
>>
>> get a usb stick and manually copy your stuff to it, periodically.
>
>
> Where do you get these 1 TB USB sticks?
>
You are seeing from the perspective of a sysadmin.
He was replying to me, a desktop user. My most important data occupy
little space and can surely be backed up in a 1 GB pen drive. The
music ripped from CDs, the linux ISOs and other kind of recoverable
data do not need backup.
As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 0:00 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-26 14:26 ` Florian Philipp
2008-11-27 12:12 ` Daniel Troeder
2008-11-29 6:01 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
0 siblings, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Florian Philipp @ 2008-11-26 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>> James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
[...]
> As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
> to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
> since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
>
A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade
over time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first.
What you need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a
good time frame).
I myself would add a textfile with md5sums for all files to the DVD so
you don't have to check them visually.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 14:26 ` Florian Philipp
@ 2008-11-27 12:12 ` Daniel Troeder
2008-11-27 18:22 ` KH
2008-11-29 5:51 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-29 6:01 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
1 sibling, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Troeder @ 2008-11-27 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1463 bytes --]
Am Mittwoch, den 26.11.2008, 15:26 +0100 schrieb Florian Philipp:
> Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Joerg Schilling
> > <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >> James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> [...]
> > As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
> > to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
> > since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
>
> A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade
> over time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first.
> What you need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a
> good time frame).
> I myself would add a textfile with md5sums for all files to the DVD so
> you don't have to check them visually.
You can buy so called "archival grade" DVD-Rs that should work for 10-20
years in a good environment. There are hugh differences between
products. In germany you can buy very good ones from Verbatim for around
2€/disk.
Also keep your photos on 2 HDDs (in different places), and copy them to
new HDDs when you buy new ones. Nowadays you buy new HDDs every 2-3
years or so, and normally the old ones should not have failed until then
(at least not 2 disks on the same sectors).
The MD5/SHA-checks should be done before copying to the new disks, so
you can be sure to copy only healthy files.
[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-27 12:12 ` Daniel Troeder
@ 2008-11-27 18:22 ` KH
2008-11-29 5:51 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: KH @ 2008-11-27 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Daniel Troeder schrieb:
> Am Mittwoch, den 26.11.2008, 15:26 +0100 schrieb Florian Philipp:
>
>> Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Joerg Schilling
>>> <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
>>> to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
>>> since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
>>>
>> A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade
>> over time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first.
>> What you need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a
>> good time frame).
>> I myself would add a textfile with md5sums for all files to the DVD so
>> you don't have to check them visually.
>>
> You can buy so called "archival grade" DVD-Rs that should work for 10-20
> years in a good environment. There are hugh differences between
> products. In germany you can buy very good ones from Verbatim for around
> 2€/disk.
>
> Also keep your photos on 2 HDDs (in different places), and copy them to
> new HDDs when you buy new ones. Nowadays you buy new HDDs every 2-3
> years or so, and normally the old ones should not have failed until then
> (at least not 2 disks on the same sectors).
> The MD5/SHA-checks should be done before copying to the new disks, so
> you can be sure to copy only healthy files.
>
If you decide to store dvds for 20 years it would be wise to store a pc
with it. Who knows if there a dvd readers or ide / sata connections
available then ;-)
Everybody who has data to protect should really store them in two
different places which do not burn down at the same time (there can be a
flood / earthquake ... [what I want to say: The places really should be
different!])
Yes check the backup before storing it. I once hat a useless backup. All
the files showed up but they only used some k. Thank god I had a second
backup which was fine.
If you only take photos randomly, you also can use cds, if the size is
big enough. And espacialy for photos hard copys are very nice. One even
can show them to grandparents ... ;-)
kh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-27 12:12 ` Daniel Troeder
2008-11-27 18:22 ` KH
@ 2008-11-29 5:51 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-12-01 3:38 ` Shawn Haggett
2008-12-09 10:56 ` Alex Schuster
1 sibling, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-29 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Troeder <daniel@admin-box.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 26.11.2008, 15:26 +0100 schrieb Florian Philipp:
>> > As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
>> > to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
>> > since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
>>
>> A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade
>> over time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first.
>> What you need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a
>> good time frame).
>> I myself would add a textfile with md5sums for all files to the DVD so
>> you don't have to check them visually.
I have recently taken this decision too. Unfortunately I haven't done
so for some old backups (fortunately they still seem healthy)
> You can buy so called "archival grade" DVD-Rs that should work for 10-20
> years in a good environment. There are hugh differences between
> products. In germany you can buy very good ones from Verbatim for around
> 2€/disk.
This can be hard to find in my mid-sized Brazilian city. If I lived in
the mega-metropolis of São Paulo, this would be far easier. And thanks
very much for recommending Verbatim. I have heard of Taiyo Yuden, but
that would likely be far harder to find.
Speaking of md5sum/shasum, do you know some tool that adds data
redundancy? I heard dvddistaster does this, but I guess it is limited
to DVDs. It would be great fo find a general data redundancy tool. In
the moment, with the tools I know, the best I can do is store the
files twice, with md5sums/shasums to decide which version is correct.
By the way, it seems from my (limited) experience that even sha256sums
are IO-bound (even on my not-so-powerful Athlon XP 2600+), so it makes
sense to calculate sha256sums (as instead of md5sums) even it is
overkill. To be doubly sure, one can calculate sha256sums *and*
md5sums.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-29 5:51 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-12-01 3:38 ` Shawn Haggett
2008-12-01 8:58 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-12-09 10:56 ` Alex Schuster
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Haggett @ 2008-12-01 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:21:44 pm Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Troeder <daniel@admin-box.com>
wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 26.11.2008, 15:26 +0100 schrieb Florian Philipp:
> > You can buy so called "archival grade" DVD-Rs that should work for 10-20
> > years in a good environment. There are hugh differences between
> > products. In germany you can buy very good ones from Verbatim for around
> > 2€/disk.
>
> This can be hard to find in my mid-sized Brazilian city. If I lived in
> the mega-metropolis of São Paulo, this would be far easier. And thanks
> very much for recommending Verbatim. I have heard of Taiyo Yuden, but
> that would likely be far harder to find.
>
> Speaking of md5sum/shasum, do you know some tool that adds data
> redundancy? I heard dvddistaster does this, but I guess it is limited
> to DVDs. It would be great fo find a general data redundancy tool. In
> the moment, with the tools I know, the best I can do is store the
> files twice, with md5sums/shasums to decide which version is correct.
Have a look at app-arch/par2cmdline ( http://parchive.sourceforge.net/ ). It
will create parity files for an arbitrary set of data files and you can
choose your level of redundency (from 0 = now redundency, just integrity
checking, up to 100%). Although expect your parity files to be on the order
of the percentage for size, i.e. 50% redundancy for some given files to take
about 50% of their size for the parity files).
The down side I find with the tool is that it doesn't currently support
directories. This isn't so bad for creating parity files, but during
checking/restore, the program expects all files to exist in the current
directory, despite which sub-dirs they were originally in. You can get around
this with a tar/rar/zip first, then calculate parities on the archive though.
> By the way, it seems from my (limited) experience that even sha256sums
> are IO-bound (even on my not-so-powerful Athlon XP 2600+), so it makes
> sense to calculate sha256sums (as instead of md5sums) even it is
> overkill. To be doubly sure, one can calculate sha256sums *and*
> md5sums.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-12-01 3:38 ` Shawn Haggett
@ 2008-12-01 8:58 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
0 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-12-01 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Shawn Haggett <podge@podgeweb.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:21:44 pm Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
>> Speaking of md5sum/shasum, do you know some tool that adds data
>> redundancy? I heard dvddistaster does this, but I guess it is limited
>> to DVDs. It would be great fo find a general data redundancy tool. In
>> the moment, with the tools I know, the best I can do is store the
>> files twice, with md5sums/shasums to decide which version is correct.
>
> Have a look at app-arch/par2cmdline ( http://parchive.sourceforge.net/ ). It
> will create parity files for an arbitrary set of data files and you can
> choose your level of redundency (from 0 = now redundency, just integrity
> checking, up to 100%). Although expect your parity files to be on the order
> of the percentage for size, i.e. 50% redundancy for some given files to take
> about 50% of their size for the parity files).
>
> The down side I find with the tool is that it doesn't currently support
> directories. This isn't so bad for creating parity files, but during
> checking/restore, the program expects all files to exist in the current
> directory, despite which sub-dirs they were originally in. You can get around
> this with a tar/rar/zip first, then calculate parities on the archive though.
>
Thank you very much. I have taken a quick look at this, and seems to
be what I look for. In a few days, when I have time, I will try it on
some files and see the results.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-29 5:51 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-12-01 3:38 ` Shawn Haggett
@ 2008-12-09 10:56 ` Alex Schuster
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alex Schuster @ 2008-12-09 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> Speaking of md5sum/shasum, do you know some tool that adds data
> redundancy? I heard dvddistaster does this, but I guess it is limited
> to DVDs.
No, it is not.
> It would be great fo find a general data redundancy tool.
emerge dvdisaster and see if it suits you.
Wonko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 14:26 ` Florian Philipp
2008-11-27 12:12 ` Daniel Troeder
@ 2008-11-29 6:01 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-29 11:30 ` Florian Philipp
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-29 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Florian Philipp
<lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote:
>> As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
>> to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
>> since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
>>
>
> A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade over
> time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first. What you
> need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a good time
> frame).
I know DVD-Rs degrade, but it is unlikely they would fail at the same
time, so copying twice does significantly alleviate the problem
(AFAIK)
Once a year isn't overkill? Isn't once every two years fine?
> I myself would add a textfile with md5sums for all files to the DVD so you
> don't have to check them visually.
Sure. I am doing that since some time now. Unfortunately I didn't do
so for some old backups. But data DVD-Rs have a considerable amount of
correction code, and if the copy from DVD to hard disk proceeds
without a single error message, there is a quite good chance that the
files are good, right?
(If they were burnt correctly in the fist place, that is. The manual
of my DVD-RW drive warns that the burned disk should be checked before
being trusted as a backup, and even then it - as usual - disclaims all
warranties).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-29 6:01 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-29 11:30 ` Florian Philipp
0 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Florian Philipp @ 2008-11-29 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Florian Philipp
> <lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote:
>>> As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and
>>> to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and
>>> since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine.
>>>
>> A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade over
>> time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first. What you
>> need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a good time
>> frame).
> I know DVD-Rs degrade, but it is unlikely they would fail at the same
> time, so copying twice does significantly alleviate the problem
> (AFAIK)
I'm not so sure in this regard. If we were talking about HDDs you were
right: it is very unlikely for two of them to fail at the same time due
to mechanical defects. But we are talking about optical media. They fail
because of chemical reactions. That's why two disks, stored equally,
bought at the same time from the same trader, produced by the same
company, should degrade equally fast and therefore fail at about the
same time. And since you want to check them less than once a year, "at
about the same time" means within the same year.
> Once a year isn't overkill? Isn't once every two years fine?
>
I'm not sure. I myself wouldn't trust normal CD/DVD-Rs for more than
three years and CD/DVD-RWs for more than one year (cheap RWs degrade
much faster than Rs).
Additionally, having such long intervals between checks makes it easier
to forget them completely. Can you remember whether you checked your
disks last year or the year before? I know I couldn't.
> Sure. I am doing that since some time now. Unfortunately I didn't do
> so for some old backups. But data DVD-Rs have a considerable amount of
> correction code, and if the copy from DVD to hard disk proceeds
> without a single error message, there is a quite good chance that the
> files are good, right?
I would think so.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 21:15 ` Joerg Schilling
2008-11-25 21:35 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-26 0:00 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-26 9:18 ` Stroller
2 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Stroller @ 2008-11-26 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On 25 Nov 2008, at 21:15, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Backups.
>>
>> get a usb stick and manually copy your stuff to it, periodically.
>
>
> Where do you get these 1 TB USB sticks?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Digital-Essential-External-Drive/dp/B000W9RNOA
Stroller.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:40 ` KH
2008-11-25 20:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-25 20:40 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-25 22:07 ` William Kenworthy
3 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-25 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 21:24:48 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
I don't think that has anything to do with performance or safety. Instead:
1. Red Hat suffers from a serious case of Not Invented Here Syndrome. They do
good work, but they have that little eccentricity too. ReiserFS was funded in
large part by SuSE, therefore RH are ill-inclined to use it. Many distros
follow Red Hat's lead, very few go with SuSE to wherever SuSE is going. Who
knows why Debian made their choice - it' s probably as simple as ext3 traces
it roots back much further than Reiser can
2. NameSys was largely driven by the fame (infamy?) of it's owner - a typical
mad scientist geek who writes excellent code. But he got himself in jail and
the risk associated with using his filesystem sans reliable know maintainer
is too great a risk for most distros
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-25 20:40 ` [gentoo-user] " Alan McKinnon
@ 2008-11-25 22:07 ` William Kenworthy
2008-11-26 0:22 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
3 siblings, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: William Kenworthy @ 2008-11-25 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 17:24 -0200, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
...
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
>
...
No, for me ext2 = continual lost data issues from even the smallest
glitch. I had (up to a couple of weeks ago ext2 on a freerunner phone -
almost daily data problems (a freerunner should be packed in foam - it
crashes 2-3 times a day if you use it!), Since using ext3, the problems
are drasticly reduced but still occur ever few days. Even VFAT has less
problems that ext2, but ext3 is a little better. Note this is using the
defaults - this conversation reminds me that I should look at this
again.
The only FS I have lost complete systems (2 laptops, flat batteries when
not present) from were ext3, as well as continuous more minor corruption
issues (love backups)
reiserfs has had corruption issues in the past, but is currently very
stable. Any issues that have developed have always been fixable with no
lost data. I did run into a few repeatable issues with NFS - about 5
years ago. None since from this. A couple of minor issues with
crashes, easily fixed and some hardware failures.
I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is
still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file
system.
Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought
home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data
profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples
experience almost assuredly wont be the same.
BillK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 22:07 ` William Kenworthy
@ 2008-11-26 0:22 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-26 0:45 ` W.Kenworthy
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto @ 2008-11-26 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
> I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is
> still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file
> system.
>
> Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought
> home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data
> profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples
> experience almost assuredly wont be the same.
In this discussion multiple people have defended reiserfs as a safe
filesystem. This is novel to me. Reiserfs is always bashed as being an
unsafe filesystem, developed with only speed in mind; a filesystem to
be used only by childish ricers or in specific situations where
filesystem performance is critical. For example, once I tried
genkernel (but did not like it and decide to go on with manual kernel
maintainance) and this message was in an ewarn
ewarn "This package is known to not work with reiser4. If you
are running"
ewarn "reiser4 and have a problem, do not file a bug. We know it does not"
ewarn "work and we don't plan on fixing it since reiser4 is the one that is"
ewarn "broken in this regard. Try using a sane filesystem like ext3 or"
ewarn "even reiser3."
They explicitly claim reiser4 is broken and insane, and their wording
implicitly suggests that ext3 is better than reiser3.
But in this discussion people are saying reiserfs is in fact safer than ext3.
I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
that either
A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
non-technical reasons.
or
B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs
fans appeared in this thread
Note: don't talk about the unfortunate horrible story of Hans' family,
the details of which we don't know. People were bashing reiserfs (both
versions 3 and 4) well before that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 0:22 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-26 0:45 ` W.Kenworthy
2008-11-26 3:41 ` Philip Webb
2008-11-26 5:05 ` Dale
2008-11-26 1:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-26 10:41 ` Joerg Schilling
2 siblings, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: W.Kenworthy @ 2008-11-26 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
...
> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
> that either
> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
> and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
> non-technical reasons.
> or
> B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs
> fans appeared in this thread
>
A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant, eccentric
but deeply flawed individual. He did not get on at a personal or
professional level with the world in general. It almost seems like
ext3/4 were developed to spite him and give alternatives so they would
not have to deal with him. Unprofessional words and actions were taken
on both sides, but the animosity caused by Hans (and others in response)
means that this will take forever to blow over, even with Hans out of
the picture.
There is a huge amount out there on this. There are also may other
highly valued developers out there who may also be a little eccentric
(to be kind!).
In the meantime, my opinion is that reiserfs3 is great, ext3 not quite
so good, and ext2/4 and reiserfs4 are for those who live on the edge :)
BillK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 0:45 ` W.Kenworthy
@ 2008-11-26 3:41 ` Philip Webb
2008-11-26 5:05 ` Dale
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Philip Webb @ 2008-11-26 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
081126 W.Kenworthy wrote:
>> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem,
>> but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers
>> caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons.
> A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant,
> eccentric but deeply flawed individual. He did not get on
> at a personal or professional level with the world in general.
> It almost seems like ext3/4 were developed to spite him
> and give alternatives so they would not have to deal with him.
> Unprofessional words and actions were taken on both sides,
> but the animosity caused by Hans and others in response means
> this will take forever to blow over, even with Hans out of the picture.
Yes, very much my own take on the story.
I used Reiserfs in the computers I built in 2003 & 2007
& have never had any problems with either installation.
My CAD 0,02 .
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 0:45 ` W.Kenworthy
2008-11-26 3:41 ` Philip Webb
@ 2008-11-26 5:05 ` Dale
2008-11-26 14:06 ` Mike Edenfield
2008-11-26 18:50 ` Alan McKinnon
1 sibling, 2 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2008-11-26 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
W.Kenworthy wrote:
> ...
>
>> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
>> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
>> that either
>> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
>> and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
>> non-technical reasons.
>> or
>> B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs
>> fans appeared in this thread
>>
>>
> A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant, eccentric
> but deeply flawed individual. He did not get on at a personal or
> professional level with the world in general. It almost seems like
> ext3/4 were developed to spite him and give alternatives so they would
> not have to deal with him. Unprofessional words and actions were taken
> on both sides, but the animosity caused by Hans (and others in response)
> means that this will take forever to blow over, even with Hans out of
> the picture.
>
> There is a huge amount out there on this. There are also may other
> highly valued developers out there who may also be a little eccentric
> (to be kind!).
>
> In the meantime, my opinion is that reiserfs3 is great, ext3 not quite
> so good, and ext2/4 and reiserfs4 are for those who live on the edge :)
>
> BillK
>
>
>
I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
chip, hard drive some new chemical, or some other ingenious thing but
can't say a kind word if you give them a double dose of Prozac.
Sort of strange huh?
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 5:05 ` Dale
@ 2008-11-26 14:06 ` Mike Edenfield
2008-11-26 18:50 ` Alan McKinnon
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Mike Edenfield @ 2008-11-26 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Dale wrote:
> I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
> question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
> have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 5:05 ` Dale
2008-11-26 14:06 ` Mike Edenfield
@ 2008-11-26 18:50 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-26 19:18 ` Dale
1 sibling, 1 reply; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-26 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 07:05:39 Dale wrote:
> I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
> question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
> have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
> chip, hard drive some new chemical, or some other ingenious thing but
> can't say a kind word if you give them a double dose of Prozac.
>
> Sort of strange huh?
Easy.
It's not that smart people have zero social skills. Smart people have the same
spread of social skills as average and dumb people.
Some smart people do not suffer fools gladly and they rise to prominence
whereas others just act like everyone else and you do not especially note
this fact. Smart people who work with machines get to be very good at it, but
machines don't talk back. Some smart folk take to talking to people the way
they talk to machines and this is noteworthy. Again, you do not take note of
the majority that do not do this.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 18:50 ` Alan McKinnon
@ 2008-11-26 19:18 ` Dale
0 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2008-11-26 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 November 2008 07:05:39 Dale wrote:
>
>> I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
>> question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
>> have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
>> chip, hard drive some new chemical, or some other ingenious thing but
>> can't say a kind word if you give them a double dose of Prozac.
>>
>> Sort of strange huh?
>>
>
> Easy.
>
> It's not that smart people have zero social skills. Smart people have the same
> spread of social skills as average and dumb people.
>
> Some smart people do not suffer fools gladly and they rise to prominence
> whereas others just act like everyone else and you do not especially note
> this fact. Smart people who work with machines get to be very good at it, but
> machines don't talk back. Some smart folk take to talking to people the way
> they talk to machines and this is noteworthy. Again, you do not take note of
> the majority that do not do this.
>
>
>
I guess we just notice the "bad ones," if you want to call them that.
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 0:22 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-26 0:45 ` W.Kenworthy
@ 2008-11-26 1:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-26 10:41 ` Joerg Schilling
2 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2008-11-26 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Mittwoch 26 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is
> > still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file
> > system.
> >
> > Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought
> > home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data
> > profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples
> > experience almost assuredly wont be the same.
>
> In this discussion multiple people have defended reiserfs as a safe
> filesystem. This is novel to me. Reiserfs is always bashed as being an
> unsafe filesystem, developed with only speed in mind; a filesystem to
> be used only by childish ricers or in specific situations where
> filesystem performance is critical. For example, once I tried
> genkernel (but did not like it and decide to go on with manual kernel
> maintainance) and this message was in an ewarn
> ewarn "This package is known to not work with reiser4. If you
> are running"
> ewarn "reiser4 and have a problem, do not file a bug. We know it does
> not" ewarn "work and we don't plan on fixing it since reiser4 is the one
> that is" ewarn "broken in this regard. Try using a sane filesystem like
> ext3 or" ewarn "even reiser3."
reiser4 and reiserfs are two completly unrelated file systems.
reiserfs is the oldest journaling fs for linux. It had been broken in early
2.4 development by careless vm patches which weren't tested prior to
inclusion. This early breakage still haunts reiserfs.
If you look at lkml, there are regularly reports about problems with ext3 and
xfs. But very few with reiserfs - and none with jfs because nobody is using
it.
> They explicitly claim reiser4 is broken and insane, and their wording
> implicitly suggests that ext3 is better than reiser3.
And I claim that genkernel is a broken piece of shit, so what?
ext3 has enough problems - look at lkml. After that you might rethink claims
that ext3 is 'stable'.
>
> But in this discussion people are saying reiserfs is in fact safer than
> ext3.
experience. Obervation. I haven't seen reiserfs problems that were not the
hardware's fault.
>
> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
> that either
Hans Reiser has zero people skills and clashed with people who also have zero
people skills. Add some misunderstandings (like plugins - they aren't
plugins), a fat 'it is not developed here' syndrom and some bias and you get a
nice explosive mess.
HR is completly out of the picture. Edward is doing reiser4 development today
and he is doing a good job.
> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
> and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
> non-technical reasons.
reiserfs is a good filesystem that was broken by third parties. Btw, some days
ago Nick Piggin broke reiser4 in -mm. And instead of fixing it, they disabled
reiser4. Which tells you a lot about the 'if you have something in kernel, it
will be fixed when changes break it' lie.
> or
> B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs
> fans appeared in this thread
reiserfs is a stable filesystem. For ages no new features have been added.
Unlike ext3 only bug fixes have been went in. The problem is, that redhat was
behind ext3 - and redhat pushs all their stuff, while agressively attacking
everything not made by them.
> Note: don't talk about the unfortunate horrible story of Hans' family,
> the details of which we don't know. People were bashing reiserfs (both
> versions 3 and 4) well before that.
because they don't understand either. reiser4 has tons of nice and good ideas
- but some people saw Reiser's name and went beserk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-26 0:22 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-26 0:45 ` W.Kenworthy
2008-11-26 1:02 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-26 10:41 ` Joerg Schilling
2 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Joerg Schilling @ 2008-11-26 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
"Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto" <please.no.spam.here@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
> that either
> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
> and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
> non-technical reasons.
> or
The Linux VFS is far from being optimal. I would guess that the real
reason for not starting a ZFS port for Linux is the Linux VFS.
The problem with Linux is that important external interfaces are broken
with every new release but that internal kernel interfaces are not evolved.
Sun claims e.g. that the changes in the Solaris kernel to allow to support
a full blown CIFS in the kernel have been bigger than than the ZFS code
size before the change.
If Linux does not evolve the Linux VFS layer, these battles will never end.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 19:07 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 19:24 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-26 9:24 ` Joerg Schilling
1 sibling, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Joerg Schilling @ 2008-11-26 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a
> lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care
> about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%.
There is even a difference between real speed and apparently observed speed.
The latter is optimized :-(
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 18:37 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 18:57 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:07 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-25 20:34 ` Alan McKinnon
2 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-25 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 20:37:13 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
> filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
> bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
> also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means
> mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than
> ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and
> the root partition is only 7% used?
I find that in normal use, most filesystems have a large range of number of
files per directory and the spread of how big those files are. In other
words, a huge mixture of everything.
reiser and ext both have areas they are very good at but in normal use the
good and bad performance evens out so you get roughly the same with both
filesystems. The deciding factor then becomes "which filesystem tools are you
most comfortable with?" because that's the one you should be using.
There are special cases - if the portage tree is on it's own filesystem, ext3
does give better performance.
> So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of
> being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support
> than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose
> ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable).
As I said in another post, I don't believe that either reiser or ext3 is
inherently more or less safe than the other. Your upgrade path to ext4 does
change things, so yeah, you have a perfectly valid reason to switch to ext3
right away
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 17:57 ` Paul Hartman
2008-11-25 18:37 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
@ 2008-11-25 19:01 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2008-11-25 20:27 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-26 3:59 ` Dale
3 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2008-11-25 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> >> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
> >>> I wouldn't use XFS unless
> >>> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out
> >>> it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power
> >>> failure, I had to reinstall from scratch.
> >>
> >> Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it
> >> that you had such problems?
> >>
> >> Bye...
> >>
> >> Dirk
> >
> > Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of
> > having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire
> > was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or
> > so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2.
> >
> > I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It
> > did the check thing but ran fine.
> >
> > Just my experience. Your mileage may vary.
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-) :-
>
> I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will
> never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file
> server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over
> and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser,
> I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.)
the corruption stories were caused by vm changes that were not tested against
reiserfs. Thank R.v.Riel, Andrea Arcangeli and of course Linus Torvalds for
that mess.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 17:57 ` Paul Hartman
2008-11-25 18:37 ` Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto
2008-11-25 19:01 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2008-11-25 20:27 ` Alan McKinnon
2008-11-26 3:59 ` Dale
3 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Alan McKinnon @ 2008-11-25 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 19:57:19 Paul Hartman wrote:
> I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will
> never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file
> server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over
> and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser,
> I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.)
Sounds like you used JFS in a case it was not designed for. XFS for instance
can be best described as "a filesystem that does aggressive caching, so if
you install it you need to guarantee that it will never lose power, i.e. use
a UPS". It's OK for SGI to have done this, considering the kind of rendering
clusters they were running it on. Use it outside that viewpoint and hey,
JMMV. JFS will have it's own specific "best use" scenario
The reiser stories are just that, horror stories from years ago. Then it was
beta software, it is not beta any more. I've used it for over 4 years now on
every machine I have and suffered no data loss that was not directly because
of me being stupid. I don't think I can blame Hans if I run fsck with the
wrong options at the wrong time :-)
> I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about
> every filesystem.
yes, very much so. Much more so than for any other kind of driver by my
experience.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
2008-11-25 17:57 ` Paul Hartman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-25 20:27 ` Alan McKinnon
@ 2008-11-26 3:59 ` Dale
3 siblings, 0 replies; 90+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2008-11-26 3:59 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't use XFS unless
>>>> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it
>>>> does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I
>>>> had to reinstall from scratch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that
>>> you had such problems?
>>>
>>> Bye...
>>>
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of
>> having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire
>> was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or
>> so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2.
>>
>> I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It
>> did the check thing but ran fine.
>>
>> Just my experience. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-) :-
>>
>
> I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will
> never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file
> server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over
> and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser,
> I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.)
>
> I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about
> every filesystem.
>
> No matter which FS you choose, I wish you good luck and hope you have
> no new horror stories. :)
>
> Paul
>
>
>
LOL. I have two hard drives and copy my main drive over to the second
drive pretty regular. One is reiserfs and the other ext3. What are the
chances both would screw up at the same time? ;-)
It could have been a bad version of XFS or something but after about
three or four times, it just got old. I put ext3 on it after that and
it would recover fine, except for the griping about not being shutdown
properly and such. It was a in-law so no clue exactly what it said but
it booted and worked.
You are right, no matter what FS you use, there is somebody that hates
it. I guess you just have to install, make a back-up, then pull the
plug and see if it survives or not. If it does, you got a keeper, if
not, restore to another FS and try again. o_O
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 90+ messages in thread