[ltp] Re: Re: Good FS for laptop
Tod Harter
linux-thinkpad@linux-thinkpad.org
Mon, 31 May 2004 17:59:25 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080500070202030504030009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Brad Langhorst wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 15:03, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>
>
>
>>Good for you. For me, on every single crash that <censored> reiserfs
>>used to corrupt /etc/modules.conf, rendering my system unbootable. I
>>finally had enough and swithched back to ext3.
>>
>>
>me too -
>I also lost a whole filesystem to reiserfs once...
>
>I switched to xfs.
>
>I've had a couple of files get lost but no corruption (yet)
>It's slower on delete but i don't delete very often so it's not a big
>issue for me.
>
>brad
>
>
>
Experiences certainly vary. I must agree with the original post on
reiserfs, its rock solid. 3 is actually a BIT slower than ext3, but
safer unless you do full journaling in ext3 and then its MUCH slower
than reiserfs (but as safe as you can get). Back in MDK 8.0 days I did
have a couple files get corrupted on reiserfs filesystem when my laptop
locked up constantly, but its much better these days, certainly at least
as good as ext3. Reiserfs 4 is WAY faster than ext3 in every respect,
but its also very CPU intensive, so you might or might not get real
advantages from it.
Virtually ext3 vs reiser 3 is a toss-up and reiser 4 is only better in
specific ways. If you have really LARGE numbers of small files, you may
really see some advantages from reiser, but ordinary workstations should
work good with either one, and I'd go with the one best supported. After
all, one lost filesystem negates a lot of speed advantage...
--------------080500070202030504030009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brad Langhorst wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1086032615.26305.954.camel@up" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 15:03, Marius Gedminas wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Good for you. For me, on every single crash that <censored> reiserfs
used to corrupt /etc/modules.conf, rendering my system unbootable. I
finally had enough and swithched back to ext3.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->me too -
I also lost a whole filesystem to reiserfs once...
I switched to xfs.
I've had a couple of files get lost but no corruption (yet)
It's slower on delete but i don't delete very often so it's not a big
issue for me.
brad
</pre>
</blockquote>
Experiences certainly vary. I must agree with the original post on
reiserfs, its rock solid. 3 is actually a BIT slower than ext3, but
safer unless you do full journaling in ext3 and then its MUCH slower
than reiserfs (but as safe as you can get). Back in MDK 8.0 days I did
have a couple files get corrupted on reiserfs filesystem when my laptop
locked up constantly, but its much better these days, certainly at
least as good as ext3. Reiserfs 4 is WAY faster than ext3 in every
respect, but its also very CPU intensive, so you might or might not get
real advantages from it. <br>
<br>
Virtually ext3 vs reiser 3 is a toss-up and reiser 4 is only better in
specific ways. If you have really LARGE numbers of small files, you may
really see some advantages from reiser, but ordinary workstations
should work good with either one, and I'd go with the one best
supported. After all, one lost filesystem negates a lot of speed
advantage... <br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080500070202030504030009--