jfs / reiser - Slackware

This is a discussion on jfs / reiser - Slackware ; I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: jfs / reiser

  1. jfs / reiser


    I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather
    it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs
    instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has anyone
    else similar experiences or words of caution?
    Thanks
    JB

  2. Re: jfs / reiser

    On 2008-08-06, danube wrote:
    >
    > I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather
    > it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs
    > instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has anyone
    > else similar experiences or words of caution?


    I didn't catch the reason why Pat dropped it as the default, but reiserfs
    had fallen into disfavor with many slackers (myself included) due to
    potential loss of data if a reiserfs box suffered a power loss crash. Since
    I went back to ext3, I've had no problems.

    nb

  3. Re: jfs / reiser

    notbob wrote:
    > On 2008-08-06, danube wrote:
    >>
    >> I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather
    >> it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs
    >> instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has anyone
    >> else similar experiences or words of caution?

    >
    > I didn't catch the reason why Pat dropped it as the default, but reiserfs
    > had fallen into disfavor with many slackers (myself included) due to
    > potential loss of data if a reiserfs box suffered a power loss crash. Since
    > I went back to ext3, I've had no problems.
    >
    > nb


    I've had several blips of power outages and no problems yet (fingers
    Xd) with rfs.
    --
    Bud

  4. Re: jfs / reiser

    danube wrote:
    > I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore,
    > rather it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose
    > jfs instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has
    > anyone else similar experiences or words of caution?


    http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-fs...-650194/
    http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...estion-648629/

    Martin


  5. Re: jfs / reiser

    On 2008-08-06, Bud wrote:
    > notbob wrote:
    >> On 2008-08-06, danube wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather
    >>> it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs
    >>> instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has anyone
    >>> else similar experiences or words of caution?

    >>
    >> I didn't catch the reason why Pat dropped it as the default, but reiserfs
    >> had fallen into disfavor with many slackers (myself included) due to
    >> potential loss of data if a reiserfs box suffered a power loss crash. Since
    >> I went back to ext3, I've had no problems.
    >>
    >> nb

    >
    > I've had several blips of power outages and no problems yet (fingers
    > Xd) with rfs.


    I've had problems with ReiserFS on a lightly loaded box that
    suffered a couple of power outages. (Won't repeat that mistake.)

  6. Re: jfs / reiser

    On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:07:05 +0200 (CEST), danube wrote:

    >
    >I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather
    >it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs
    >instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has anyone
    >else similar experiences or words of caution?


    I have ext4 on test now (for non-critical data like kernel source)
    and will switch to it from reiserfs3 when ext4 is production ready.
    (ext4dev is available for linux-2.6.26+).

    Reiserfs3 has no future as the Suse people who got the thing working
    are doing other things these days. And of course Reiserfs4 is unlikely
    to get off the ground...

    I haven't had any issues with using reiserfs3 for years, when I last
    used ext3 it used to lockup occasionally, likely fixed by now as I
    switched to reiserfs3 about five years ago.

    Never used JFS, no idea how it compares.

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  7. Re: jfs / reiser

    On 2008-08-06, danube wrote:
    >
    > I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore, rather
    > it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose jfs
    > instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has anyone
    > else similar experiences or words of caution?



    Well, any input you get is going to be tainted with anecdotal
    "evidence," and mine is no exception. That being said, here goes...

    We used reiserfs on cardinal for several years, and when we moved
    from our first colocation facility, we upgraded it from something
    (10.1 maybe) to 11.0. That's when we discovered our /home partition
    had some files with crazy looking names (non-legal characters and
    such), and none of those files could be deleted, not even by inode.
    After some research, we determined that they were corrupted, and at
    that point, we couldn't risk doing a "reiserfsck --fix-fixable" even,
    as we were already rushing to get the box to the new colo facility,
    and we couldn't afford to risk the data loss. Since then, I've talked
    to several other people (many of whom are "high profile" individuals
    in the linux community - I'll leave it at that) who've experienced
    similar filesystem corruption. Attempts at fixing it have had mixed
    results, so long story short, I don't trust reiserfs on anything.
    YMMV - again, that's largely anecdotal.

    ext3 has always been stable in my usage of it, but it has two negative
    points against it:
    1. it's a bit slower than the alternatives (in my experience, at least,
    and again, that's corroborated by several other people whom I trust.
    2. If you happen to experience severe corruption on ext3, it's fsck
    has a nasty habit of requiring keyboard input. That's a problem if
    the box in question happens to be remote. One could argue that you've
    got bigger problem if that sort of corruption is present, and that's
    certainly a valid point, but I'm leery anyway.
    All that notwithstanding, ext3 *IS* stable and reliable.

    We've got xfs on cardinal now, and while we've had no problems (and it
    comes highly recommended by some high-profile individuals), I'm a bit
    uneasy about it (though obviously not to the point of refusing to use it).
    It was originally designed for hardware that had large capacitors which
    stored enough "juice" to do a final sync of the filesystem in case of a
    powerfail. Consumer hardware doesn't have that, so powerfail situations
    are perhaps worth concern. If you're using it on a laptop (which has a
    built-in UPS, right? ) or with a reliable UPS, the you can probably
    rest easy - it's actively developed, and it's trusted by many/most linux
    professionals, best I can tell. BTW, cardinal does have reliable battery
    backup...

    I've been using JFS for about three years now on various boxes including
    my firewall (which is really a multipurpose router plus nfs, samba, ftp,
    http, dhcp, dns, etcetera server), and I've had absolutely no problems
    on any of them. My laptop is currently using JFS on LVM on LUKS, in fact.

    I'm sure someone out there has some anecdotal evidence of JFS suckage, and
    if so, I'd love to hear it :-)

    -RW

  8. Re: jfs / reiser

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2008-08-12, Robby Workman wrote:
    > ext3 has always been stable in my usage of it, but it has two negative
    > points against it:



    3. It still has to do an fsck every n boots or Bad Things Happen(TM).
    I hate ext3 for this very reason on desktops and laptops that might be
    frequently rebooted. For servers this issue is minimized, but the
    others Robby mentioned are perhaps maximized. Thus, I choose not to
    use ext3 in any situation, and I'm not certain ext4 will address these
    issues satisfactorily.

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkii/EUACgkQrZS6hX/gvjqbAwCgz5j4Nu5DJb57nMaD3ChynalB
    3AwAoOIsxbpin8I5XORoqxoO+qt7lop3
    =LU+3
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  9. Re: jfs / reiser

    On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:07:05 +0200, danube wrote:

    > I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore,
    > rather it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose
    > jfs instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has
    > anyone else similar experiences or words of caution? Thanks
    > JB


    Having used them both, I have had nothing but problems with
    reiserfs, whereas jfs's behavior has been flawless so far.

  10. Re: jfs / reiser

    On 2008-08-13, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    >
    > On 2008-08-12, Robby Workman wrote:
    >> ext3 has always been stable in my usage of it, but it has two negative
    >> points against it:

    >
    >
    > 3. It still has to do an fsck every n boots or Bad Things Happen(TM).
    > I hate ext3 for this very reason on desktops and laptops that might be
    > frequently rebooted. For servers this issue is minimized, but the
    > others Robby mentioned are perhaps maximized.



    Ah yes, I completely forgot that one. Thanks!

    -RW

  11. Re: jfs / reiser

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:55:15 +0000, Alexander S.F.X. van Dusen wrote:

    > On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:07:05 +0200, danube wrote:
    >
    >> I see that reiser is not the default file system for 12.1 anymore,
    >> rather it is ext3. I didn't want to go back to these fsck's and chose
    >> jfs instead. It seems a good choice after one week of heavy use. Has
    >> anyone else similar experiences or words of caution? Thanks JB

    >
    > Having used them both, I have had nothing but problems with
    > reiserfs, whereas jfs's behavior has been flawless so far.



    Many thanks to all of you. I think I am a bit more confident now about
    using jfs as my first choice. It seems to be very good on one of my
    machines, and fast.

    JB

  12. Re: jfs / reiser

    +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    > 3. It still has to do an fsck every n boots or Bad Things Happen(TM).
    > I hate ext3 for this very reason on desktops and laptops that might be
    > frequently rebooted. For servers this issue is minimized, but the
    > others Robby mentioned are perhaps maximized. Thus, I choose not to
    > use ext3 in any situation, and I'm not certain ext4 will address these
    > issues satisfactorily.


    You can switch off that behaviour (tune2fs -c 0) and trust on the
    fsck every 6 months (by default, you can change that interval with
    tune2fs too).
    At my current job (NOT my decision) we use ext3 exclusively, but
    with the "mount count" on 500 and the interval at 2 months, so
    that will also restrict the number of "unwanted" fsck's.
    --
    ************************************************** *****************
    ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT **
    ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
    ** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
    ************************************************** *****************

  13. Re: jfs / reiser

    On 2008-08-12, Robby Workman wrote:
    >
    > 2. If you happen to experience severe corruption on ext3, it's fsck
    > has a nasty habit of requiring keyboard input. That's a problem if
    > the box in question happens to be remote. One could argue that you've
    > got bigger problem if that sort of corruption is present, and that's
    > certainly a valid point, but I'm leery anyway.


    If your server is important enough, you will have some sort of remote
    console access, so that you can get to a console even in runlevel 1 (or
    even at the BIOS or bootloader). I was just looking at this, and serial
    concentrators are *cheep*! The Avocent CCS4008 can be had for about
    $600; even only a few years ago the more or less equivalent Cyclades CAS
    was about $1400.

    Obviously this doesn't influence what FS you use.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


+ Reply to Thread