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 ABBE01381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F343AE0956; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from icp-osb-irony-out8.external.iinet.net.au (icp-osb-irony-out8.external.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.225]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5EDE087D for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:44:07 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMFABhTb1N8lGyn/2dsb2JhbABYgwaEDqhMAQEBAQEBBpcIgxEBgRIWdIIlAQEFI1URCw0LAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAEBiDyrBKNlF4EqhCyIEQkRAVcWgl+BSwSFSoRDjzuGZSmFa4YOg0MwgTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1029,1389715200"; d="scan'208";a="818091536" Received: from unknown (HELO moriah.localdomain) ([124.148.108.167]) by icp-osb-irony-out8.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 11 May 2014 18:44:05 +0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moriah.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0071C737 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:44:04 +0800 (WST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lan.localdomain Received: from moriah.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moriah.lan.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fE7RTMgZ5dq9 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:43:53 +0800 (WST) Received: from [192.168.44.3] (moriah [192.168.44.3]) by moriah.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1C83F450 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:43:53 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <536F5469.5010901@iinet.net.au> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:43:53 +0800 From: William Kenworthy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] planned btrfs conversion: questions References: <20140506121832.678ae781@marcec> <536B712E.3040009@iinet.net.au> <536DF25F.3010002@iinet.net.au> <201405110953.13798.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201405110953.13798.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b1088136-17f1-424d-b5eb-2e344abca873 X-Archives-Hash: b6251c83bfb7beab77f51fffe46a9baa On 05/11/14 16:53, Mick wrote: > 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 > when I/O was high. While on reiserfs I also had a couple of corrupt mysql > files and all around poor performance. Now, this was on a machine with a > deficient PSU (I replaced a couple of capacitors since then and it is now > working properly) so I don't want to blame the filesystem because of this > hardware problem. In any case, under these impaired conditions ext4 was a > much better performing filesystem than reiserfs. No lock ups, significantly > faster and no corruption was observed in normal operation - I didn't try to > hammer it. > > So I read your paragraph above with surprise, because in my experience the > opposite was true. At the time I thought that reiserfs was perhaps suffering > from bitrot, because these symptoms had gotten worse over time. This is on an > installation running since 2005. Not sure what to conclude from these > anecdotal observations ... :-/ > Everyone's use case and experience with filesystems seems a bit different. One reason I am moving from reiserfs is bitrot - I can see that reiserfs is losing favour. btrfs has potential ... BillK