On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:46 PM, ANDY KENNEDY <ANDY.KENNEDY@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Basically, it is stable (as of the latest stuff release). However, > > I would recommend reiser4 only for personal needs, not for production > > (corporate use). The latter requires some work to be done in active > > Yeah, that was what I was told in the late 90's when I put an early > rev of ReiserFS on a production server with a whopping 75GB of storage. > > Eventually, after about the 5 power loss on the system, it corrupted > that partition. Reiserfs-progs was able to recover it, though. So, > is this one of those cases where if I put it on a production system it > will work great as long as I don't improperly drop power on it? > > I really like the stability of ReiserFS over everything else I've used. I use R4 in few servers that over time had power losses. I never had problems after it. Never a slightest error. I had corruptions under following circumstaces and you can read about it in the archives of this m-l: 1. OOM; 2. Years ago on disk full, but it was fixed since; 3. Kernel panic because of some drivers problems. 4. I had some problematic 10GB qcow2 WinXP image that after few years developed an error. Dunno if it was R4 related. Corruptions were always in the form of lost names ad paths of files/directories, but the data in them was always there, in lost&found. I still exclusively use R4 with compression for everything except video files and virtual machine images. For that I use R4 without compression. I would recommend you do the same as there are lot of upsides to cryptocompress on R4 and CPU overhead is small as it's LZO compression. I maintaingGentoo R4 FAQ and I recommend that you read it https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-706171.html > > > > collaboration with administrators of production systems. Reiser4 has a > > I own all of these systems. Most are built from scratch. > > > number of open tickets/bugreports, but all of those problems are hard > > reproducible. Every sophisticated file system has a list of such > > issues, though. > > Yeah, hence the question above. > > > > > It is really hard to corrupt a reiser4 partition in a way that fsck > > will refuse to fix it. Nevertheless, I wouldn't recommend to use too > > large partitions. The smaller partition, the larger chances, that I'll > > take a look at it, if any problems with fsck. > > I have a back-up copy (actually several back-up copies). And, this is > data that doesn't change that much, so I can recover fairly easily. > > > > Also, keep in mind that > > intelligent compression (default mode) is not optimal for large media- > > files (see https://reiser4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Reiser4_Howto for > > details). > > With a 15TB drive, I'm not worried about compression. That, IMO, would > be a performance hit anyway. It helps IOPS tremendously especially on small files as it packs them together. It's not about size of IO it's about IOPS. > > > > > > Reiser4 is better in all items (performance, features, implementation, > > maintainability, etc) than its predecessor ReiserFS(v3). This is true. > > > > > Thanks, > > Edward. > > Thanks Edward! I'll give ReiserFS4 a shot! > > Andy Dušan > > > > > On 10/04/2017 12:29 AM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > I've searched around on the web a bit and found various folks spouting > > > off about Reiser4 here and there. I am about to reinstall a system and > > > want to choose the right filesystem. I read some report about ReiserFS > > > v3 not being multi-thread safe and that ext4 ran circles around it. I > > > was disappointed at the hanging I was getting on ext4, so switched back > > > to ReiserFS and got more consistent high performance. I have a power- > > > house system built with a large HW Raid 5 drive and want to reformat > > > and repartition that sucker up. In your opinion, what is the best > > > filesystem to use right now? Keeping in mind that I do low-level > > > driver work for my company and am used to hacking around in the kernel, > > > so patching a kernel doesn't frighten me at all. > > > > > > It looks like Reiser4 still isn't in the mainline kernel... which is > > > disappointing to me that we developers also allow political > > > bureaucracy to shadow over potentially better solutions. So, what is > > > the sate of Reiser4 and should I go with that for my 16-core system, > > > stick with Reiser3, or grab hold to ext4? > > > > > > Thanks for your opinion in advance! > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
