2006/1/5, Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Francois Barre <francois.barre@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > G'day Francois. > > > Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this > > solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in > > the months to come... Performance is absolutely not a big issue for > > me, but I would not appreciate any data loss. > > If your key interest is data integrity, and you don't care a fig about > performance, you would be much better off using ext3 on that filesystem. > > Depending on the test, ext3 may not do better than other filesystems, > but it is really quite hard to go past the long history of reliability > and stability that it has. > [...] Well, as far as I understood it (that is, not so far :-p), reiser4 seemed to have a stronger and more efficient journal than ext3. That is not what everyone believes, but reiser4 was to be designed that way more or less... But I guess that ext3 and its very-heavily-tested journal can still be more trusted than any newcomer. Truth is, I would have been glad to play with reiser4 on a large amount of data, just because I was interrested on the theories behind it (including the database-filesystem strange wedding Hans tried to organize). Maybe it's too great a risk for a production system. Well, anyway, thanks for the advice. Guess I'll have to stay on ext3 if I don't want to have nightmares... Best regards, F.-E.B. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
