From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B481381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 08:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 86B0DE0956; Sun, 11 May 2014 08:53:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47E3EE0919 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 08:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n15so3126766wiw.3 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 01:53:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=Y6eEbEbNQyrc4tDEjZ0lv1Iuffx6x7AL0UPzbtYzrE8=; b=bc6vhsVwQtlGTZh46puhAvKqg9Vmf9PViNRj5zs0IAmie7rGCrAo35Sslg/KdJxMQD Op/caoU6qayKUsoKm3TzGKPC0GXu0T7hdOJzgcorziskMD7YUQqLqPYMUTvsqUFz+b42 RvBlk91YMBWFl9YOXI54NvleSTdJufSqgqpJoGZVy8UT/FPu9oBxdJo34X5umFPdUrKy Yn/LC0w52k9OskI6LHKKOOn4J3VFn8VJncYVBAW97QNM9y54Es6roJjLyDyxqmsvsx/x PhTVNMORncl345qwmo78PsgZFLFuPwndYSirZM4tUREVKhVeBhM6gIlfNrhU2cjjRtpO VSDA== X-Received: by 10.180.101.6 with SMTP id fc6mr10497828wib.59.1399798397938; Sun, 11 May 2014 01:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (212-70-208-152.ath.static.tee.gr. [212.70.208.152]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b19sm4423590wic.5.2014.05.11.01.53.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 May 2014 01:53:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] planned btrfs conversion: questions Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 09:53:10 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <20140506121832.678ae781@marcec> <536B712E.3040009@iinet.net.au> <536DF25F.3010002@iinet.net.au> In-Reply-To: <536DF25F.3010002@iinet.net.au> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2624853.s7Zn6ROXGL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201405110953.13798.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 82d87d01-1dca-40b0-96f8-c8abb8be013d X-Archives-Hash: 9f15daa505d0221d6290c32e4014cf49 --nextPart2624853.s7Zn6ROXGL Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday 10 May 2014 10:33:19 William Kenworthy wrote: > Note that as I said in my original > email, "dirvish" really hammers a file system and only reiserfs seems to > withstand it though I have gotten errors with it in the past. Ive tried > ext4 (takes only a couple of backup sessions and its unrecoverable, > btrfs an occasional error with two complete losses of the > partition/filesystem since Christmas and reiserfs gets rare errors. I moved away from reisefs to ext4 because I was getting some random lockups= =20 when I/O was high. While on reiserfs I also had a couple of corrupt mysql= =20 files and all around poor performance. Now, this was on a machine with a=20 deficient PSU (I replaced a couple of capacitors since then and it is now=20 working properly) so I don't want to blame the filesystem because of this=20 hardware problem. In any case, under these impaired conditions ext4 was a= =20 much better performing filesystem than reiserfs. No lock ups, significantl= y=20 faster and no corruption was observed in normal operation - I didn't try to= =20 hammer it. So I read your paragraph above with surprise, because in my experience the= =20 opposite was true. At the time I thought that reiserfs was perhaps sufferi= ng=20 from bitrot, because these symptoms had gotten worse over time. This is on= an=20 installation running since 2005. Not sure what to conclude from these=20 anecdotal observations ... :-/ =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart2624853.s7Zn6ROXGL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABCAAGBQJTbzp5AAoJELAdA+zwE4YeItkH/0/hrs3bkf3f23doIch6tfck cGfRPAMQleAHE1rvztRIhje2apB6VjLXy5eCLiReaQJrZrTNV3YhMRWjDbo9OCnn F54k15MvGeIc67swZEJjnDFCSqjmdmNPNL/xurLDJJ0iycnHRFsGMRUBYRzFqENj hONVRFjN3kW61rFmL00gxCKZvG9fkhqnheCGIC7fhT6zLFdVreqPy7tughhBbORF rU7Di/hWb/ei6Vk4/2IpsBcGjoWxmr4drzp+F8BTj4TsVJrwNZCK5RIHsaG73FBM sxtA8pUYXk3XCUq/34tW7x+EcByneHH4ojwA7XtW0gyacYUPlCrqRqNwNKUhCVQ= =hr72 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2624853.s7Zn6ROXGL--