On 8/3/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > sudo Yang <sudoyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ext3 wasn't supported in RH 7.1. > > The Anaconda installer didn't support it. > But the kernels had support for it. > > You could make any Ext2 filesystem into Ext3 very easily, > except the root filesystem itself. > > > This is very good info about XFS, so thanks for the info. > > I know it has made it into the standard kernel tree. > > IMHO, XFS has always been the most reliable/stable journaling > filesystem in Linux. The lack of advanced features required > for it in the Linux 2.4 kernel itself was always the issue. > SGI got on-board with the 2.5 development really quick, and > a lot of the VFS features in 2.6 owe their thanx to SGI. Does XFS do data journaling (ReiserFS 4 is supposed to do this at minimal cost)? > > How's the development effort on it as of late? > > Understand that XFS development was pretty straight forward. > Unlike Ext3, they had already dealt with the quota and ACL > issues on Irix, and written that code. > Unlike ReiserFS, the structure hadn't changed a bit. > And unlike JFS from OS/2, XFS came from Irix, a UNIX > platform. > [ IBM's move to port JFS from OS/2 in 1999, instead of AIX, > had to do with Monterey, their joint contract with SCO that > IBM broke later ] > > > Wonder why RedHat chose not to support anything else except > > for ext2 and ext3. > > Proven, reliable, etc..., and Tweedie (who largely came up > with Ext3) works at Red Hat. I love the fact that I can > always break down to a full Ext2 fsck if I need to for Ext3. > > One of the reasons I refuse to use ReiserFS has nothing to do > with its kernel/journal code -- which from what I've seen, is > far better than JFS and many others (possibly even Ext3) -- > but the off-line tools _lag_ the kernel/journal code. > > I.e., ReiserFS is typically fine if the journal recovers. > And ReiserFS does a good job in testing if it should use its > journal are not (arguably better than Ext3). But the > off-lines tools -- they are seemingly _never_ "up-to-date" so > if the journal can't recovery, you're at their mercy. > > > How stable are user-land tools for dealing with corrupted > > XFS filesystems? > > xfs_repair is a crapload better than ReiserFS' fsck. > I have never, ever lost an Ext2/Ext3 or XFS filesystem to an > fsck.ext2 or xfs_repair run. The latter was even able to > repair the 2 /var filesystems I had corruption on back with > the XFS 1.0 bug. And the former has saved me when I've had > physical disk errors. > > I've had toast after toast after toast with ReiserFS' fsck. > In fact, when it comes to an inconsistent ReiserFS that > (correctly) won't replay its journal, I clone it, mount it > read-only and pull all the data off I can -- even though it's > inconsistent. Because so many ReiserFS fsck have left it > totally inconsistant and umountable on me. > > > This is one area of ReiserFS that still needs a lot of > > work. > > Thanx because Hans Reiser believes filesystems should be > redesigned every 5 years. > > Ext2 (including Ext3) and XFS have had the same structure > since the mid-'90s. Ext3 underwent a run-time change at > kernel 2.2 (circa 1998), and XFS underweant a run-time change > at XFS 1.1 (i.e., circa 2002 / Red Hat Linux 7.2). > > > We've been running ReiserFS in very active systems > > for the past 4+ years. For the most part, it has been > > fairly good to us. > > As long as the ReiserFS journal can recover, I think it's a > great OS. Reiser & team put in the time to make a good > driver and recovery logic. I won't fault them there, and I'd > say it's probably better than Ext3's basic approach. > > > We've lost about 5 systems we could not recover using these > > tools (sometimes these tools did more harm than good). > > Exactly! Because the focus is _never_ on the off-line tools. > And it is unlike that will _ever_ change. > > > > -- > Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail > mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any > http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers) > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >