Reliability of file systems - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Reliability of file systems - Ubuntu ; I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of the file system. I have twice lost data to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Reliability of file systems

  1. Reliability of file systems

    I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not
    too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of
    the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system
    corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more
    reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.
    Thanks.



  2. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:

    > I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an
    > not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the
    > reliability of the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained
    > NTFS file system corruption and would like to know if there is any
    > evidence that ext3 is more reliable which would alone be reason to make
    > Linux the choice over Windows. Thanks.


    oh that's a worry... were you running Windows accessing NTFS? I have a
    massive amount of data sitting on NTFS that I use 3G to read and write
    to, until I get around to migrating it all to ReiserFS which I hear is
    very robust and faster than EXT3?

  3. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:

    > I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not
    > too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of
    > the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system
    > corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more
    > reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.
    > Thanks.


    ext3 is quite robust - data integrity should not be an issue. Personally,
    I've been using reiser almost exclusively for several years and have never
    had a problem. In fact, I've recovered data from a disk with errors which
    would not even boot.


  4. Re: Reliability of file systems

    ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:
    >
    >> I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not
    >> too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of
    >> the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system
    >> corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more
    >> reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.
    >> Thanks.

    >
    > ext3 is quite robust - data integrity should not be an issue. Personally,
    > I've been using reiser almost exclusively for several years and have never
    > had a problem. In fact, I've recovered data from a disk with errors which
    > would not even boot.
    >

    I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless I'm using
    the OS for which it was designed). Of course, there are serious
    concerns now about the future of the ReiserFS file system, since the
    author, Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his
    Russian wife.

  5. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Usenet Reader wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:
    >>
    >>> I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an
    >>> not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the
    >>> reliability of the file system. I have twice lost data to
    >>> unexplained NTFS file system corruption and would like to know if
    >>> there is any evidence that ext3 is more reliable which would alone be
    >>> reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.
    >>> Thanks.


    > I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless I'm using



    ext3 is supposed to be (one of the) "the working horses" in the linux /
    unix file systems.
    I read something technical stuff about it. It should be fine.
    Difference ext2 - ext3 in short: ext3 has journalling, partly enabled by
    default. This however should be enough for the lot of us.
    I once already got ext3 "confused:" when the partition got entirely
    full. But removing the "confused" (=crosslinked) files was enough.

    So far, i never had trouble with ntfs either. Just run chkdsk
    regularly. So far my only data loss on ntfs had to do with "bad
    clusters" = a hardware problem.
    When chkdsk on ntfs errors, just run chkdsk 3, 4, 5 times and usually
    it gets solved. If really necessary, run chkdsk /f or /r. Later on i
    didn't do that anymore, chkdsk 4x was enough ...

    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 - (bubbling around, sometimes ...)."
    Less gui, less icons, more speed ... (^-^)

  6. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Demosthenes wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:
    >
    >> I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an
    >> not too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the
    >> reliability of the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained
    >> NTFS file system corruption and would like to know if there is any
    >> evidence that ext3 is more reliable which would alone be reason to make
    >> Linux the choice over Windows. Thanks.


    > to, until I get around to migrating it all to ReiserFS which I hear is
    > very robust and faster than EXT3?


    Faster? I read a few performance tests of different linux filesystem,
    among which reisiger and ext3.

    Differences are small and depend on what you read / write: large files,
    small ones, files "all over the disk", a few, al lot and so on.

    What i myself ones found out on ntfs4 was the "fastest" cluster.
    Win default is 0.5 kb. 4kb was faster, but not much more than 2kb.

    Personally i will use a 2kb or 4 kb cluster next time on ext3, when i
    format again. I saw an advice somewhere on internet too for the 2kb
    cluster for ext3.

    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 - (bubbling around, sometimes ...)."
    Less gui, less icons, more speed ... (^-^)

  7. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:09:29 GMT, Usenet Reader wrote:

    > Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his Russian
    > wife.


    Did he keep a journal?

    --
    Chris Game

    "Common sense is that layer of prejudices which we acquire before
    we are sixteen." -- Albert Einstein

  8. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Chris Game illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:09:29 GMT, Usenet Reader wrote:
    >
    >> Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his Russian
    >> wife.

    >
    > Did he keep a journal?


    Heh. *Genius*.

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  9. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Chris Game wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:09:29 GMT, Usenet Reader wrote:
    >
    >> Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his Russian
    >> wife.

    >
    > Did he keep a journal?
    >

    His lawyer is trying to recover the fysical state from before the
    (career)crash with the journal, right now ...
    :-D

    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 - (bubbling around, sometimes ...)."
    Less gui, less icons, more speed ... (^-^)

  10. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:32:02 +0000, Chris Game wrote:

    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:09:29 GMT, Usenet Reader wrote:
    >
    >> Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his Russian
    >> wife.

    >
    > Did he keep a journal?


    *GROAN*

    That was first class. I wish I hadn't read it just after lunch :-)

    On the serious side, HR's trial affects Reiser4, which he was working on,
    and wil probably never be finished. Reiser3 is in the kernel tree and has
    not required HR's input for several years. All the maintenance of Reiser3
    has been performed by the kernel maintainers for quite a while now.

    Aside: The more I hear about HR's trial, the more it all sounds
    implausible. All of it.

  11. Re: Reliability of file systems

    xubunt6 wrote:

    > Faster? I read a few performance tests of different linux filesystem,
    > among which reisiger and ext3.


    *Reiser*. Not "Reisiger" - Reiser.

    > Differences are small and depend on what you read / write: large files,
    > small ones, files "all over the disk", a few, al lot and so on.


    The differences can, in fact, be huge, depending on what type of use you
    put it to.

    Reiser is known to test well with large amounts of small files, but less
    so than ext3 with huge files.

    > What i myself ones found out on ntfs4 was the "fastest" cluster.


    That makes no sense anywhere.

    > Win default is 0.5 kb.


    Bull****.
    It's been 4K since NT was invented.

    > 4kb was faster, but not much more than 2kb.


    Well, how would you know ? It's the *default* for NTFS partitions, so
    you've probably used them all your life.

    > Personally i will use a 2kb or 4 kb cluster next time on ext3, when i
    > format again. I saw an advice somewhere on internet too for the 2kb
    > cluster for ext3.


    Yeah, and you just copy what you read - stellar job!
    The default *block* size for ext2 and ext3 is 1024 bytes.
    Which has little to do with cluster size, except that the cluster size
    has to be smaller than or equal to the block size.


    J.

  12. Re: Reliability of file systems

    xubunt6 wrote:

    > ext3 is supposed to be (one of the) "the working horses" in the linux /
    > unix file systems.


    It is the de facto standard on Linux distributions, because it has a
    long history and has proven to be one of the most stable FSs around.

    You have no clue about Unix, apparently, as they tend to use their own
    filesystems.

    > I read something technical stuff about it.


    Wow.

    > Difference ext2 - ext3 in short: ext3 has journalling, partly enabled by
    > default.


    No.

    Ext3 is ext2 *with journaling* - if you format a partition as ext3, it
    has /metadata/ journaling *fully* enabled, but it is still backwards
    compatible with ext2 - you can mount an ext3 partition as ext2 at all times.


    J.

  13. Re: Reliability of file systems

    B wrote:
    > I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not
    > too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of
    > the file system.


    Don't be.

    Use ext3 with full journaling enabled if you are squeamish, but that all
    depends on what hardware you put under it.

    > I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system corruption


    Yeah.. care to guess *why* that was unexplained?

    > and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more
    > reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.


    For a home server, there is no issue - Linux is free, stable, and has a
    lot more capabilities right out of the box.

    J.

  14. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:09:29 +0000, Usenet Reader wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:
    >>
    >>> I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not
    >>> too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of
    >>> the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system
    >>> corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more
    >>> reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.
    >>> Thanks.

    >>
    >> ext3 is quite robust - data integrity should not be an issue. Personally,
    >> I've been using reiser almost exclusively for several years and have never
    >> had a problem. In fact, I've recovered data from a disk with errors which
    >> would not even boot.
    >>

    > I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless I'm using
    > the OS for which it was designed). Of course, there are serious
    > concerns now about the future of the ReiserFS file system, since the
    > author, Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his
    > Russian wife.


    What's already out will not become less reliable whether he's available or
    not. BTW - in prison he could have a lot of free time.


  15. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:47 +0000, B wrote:

    > I plan to put together a basic home server for backup purposes. I an not
    > too fussed as to what OS it runs but I am concerned with the reliability of
    > the file system. I have twice lost data to unexplained NTFS file system
    > corruption and would like to know if there is any evidence that ext3 is more
    > reliable which would alone be reason to make Linux the choice over Windows.
    > Thanks.


    Do at least a triple save, preferably each to a different drive if not a
    different os and file-system at a different site altogether, with
    majority-rule bytewise-compare on access . . . .

    Drop-dead reliability, especially as redundancy and number of different
    osses and file-systems increase . . . .

    (I hope you're not concerned about speed and compactness too.)

    --

    C: The First and Still the Best Portable AL!




    RSN


  16. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:57:17 -0700
    ray wrote:

    > > I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless I'm using
    > > the OS for which it was designed). Of course, there are serious
    > > concerns now about the future of the ReiserFS file system, since the
    > > author, Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his
    > > Russian wife.

    >
    > What's already out will not become less reliable whether he's available or
    > not. BTW - in prison he could have a lot of free time.


    They might only have Windows PCs though.

    --
    If you can do ballet then you can do anything
    except reach high things because you're dinky.
    Kiera Best - Aged 6.

  17. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:15:00 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:

    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:57:17 -0700
    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> > I have never had a problem with ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS (unless I'm using
    >> > the OS for which it was designed). Of course, there are serious
    >> > concerns now about the future of the ReiserFS file system, since the
    >> > author, Hans Reiser is going to trial for allegedly murdering his
    >> > Russian wife.

    >>
    >> What's already out will not become less reliable whether he's available or
    >> not. BTW - in prison he could have a lot of free time.

    >
    > They might only have Windows PCs though.


    Well, naturally. They are there to serve their debt to society.

    On re-reading that it's not clear whether I am talking about the convicts
    or the PCs, but it makes sense either way.

  18. Re: Reliability of file systems

    Mark South wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:15:00 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:
    >> BTW - in prison he could have a lot of free time.
    >> They might only have Windows PCs though.

    >
    > Well, naturally. They are there to serve their debt to society.
    >
    > On re-reading that it's not clear whether I am talking about the convicts
    > or the PCs, but it makes sense either way.


    Indeed!

  19. Re: Reliability of file systems

    xubunt6 wrote:

    Reams and reams of barely intelligible nonsense.

    Really.

  20. Re: Reliability of file systems

    On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:44:32 +0000, Trevor Best wrote:


    >>
    >> Seriously, did you write a bash script to generate all that nonsense?
    >> Hardly a single line made any sense at all. Did you leave the gas on
    >> and the window's closed?

    >
    > You try explaining something in Dutch next time.


    come on guys.. this is the sort of thing that turns the world off
    Linux. Flame wars, RTFM, damn newbies, etc etc.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast