-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Sergey Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:09 PM To: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: ReiserFS & EXT2/3 issues
Has anyone had experience using reiser as root filesystem? Fedora does not offer to format the partition as reiser on install, however it accepts it and contain all related modules and reiserfs-utils.
Since my ext3 crashed after a sudden power failure, having all its content moved to /lost+found with #xxxxxxx names (by fsck), I tried reiser and was satisfied with it. The speed seems to be a bit lower, however, having simulated 50 power failures in different circumstances, it has not failed. Furthermore, it has not corrupted any files, attributes or whatever. Each time the mount replayed last transactions and I did not even have to run long fsck test. After all I run long fsck and everything was wonderful.
Kernel notes have hopeful information relating reiser:
Reiserfs support (REISERFS_FS)
Stores not just filenames but the files themselves in a balanced tree. Uses journaling.
Balanced trees are more efficient than traditional file system architectural foundations.
In general, ReiserFS is as fast as ext2, but is very efficient with large directories and small files. Additional patches are needed for NFS and quotas, please see http://www.namesys.com/ for links.
It is more easily extended to have features currently found in database and keyword search systems than block allocation based file systems are. The next version will be so extended, and will support plugins consistent with our motto ``It takes more than a license to make source code open.''
Read http://www.namesys.com/ to learn more about reiserfs.
Sponsored by Threshold Networks, Emusic.com, and Bigstorage.com.
If you like it, you can pay us to add new features to it that you need, buy a support contract, or pay us to port it to another OS.
I use reiserfs and love it. I wish RedHat would be more open to using it, not even including it in the install seems a bit much to me. Though I think you can install with reiserfs if you do a linux reiserfs while booting from the CD, I haven't tested it.
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/printthread.php?t=25826
-Mike
Mike McGrath wrote:
I use reiserfs and love it. I wish RedHat would be more open to using it, not even including it in the install seems a bit much to me. Though I think you can install with reiserfs if you do a linux reiserfs while booting from the CD, I haven't tested it.
The problem is "how many questions do you want there to be in the install?"
A lot of the work going into Fedora (and desktop Linux in general) is aimed at making it much easier for "non-techies", for want of a better word, to use. The idea is that some questions are inevitable, but they should be things that only the user can be expected to know (like their name and which ISP they're using).
Questions (or options) that relate to the way the *internals* of the machine behave mean new users will be asked to think about something they're not familiar with (so they'll think the install is hard). Note that documentation isn't the answer: it enables them to answer questions, it can't make the Right Answer immediately obvious.
I'm sorry that the Original Poster had problems with his ext3 installation (did he change the way it was listed in /etc/fstab?) I've heard of very few problems with ext3 (and about as many with reiserfs), and many of them turned out to be "pilot error".
For most users, it's simpler for Fedora to make the choice for them.
James.
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:38:36AM +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
I use reiserfs and love it. I wish RedHat would be more open to using it, not even including it in the install seems a bit much to me. Though I think you can install with reiserfs if you do a linux reiserfs while booting from the CD, I haven't tested it.
The problem is "how many questions do you want there to be in the install?"
There's a support cost to it too. ext[23] bugs usually tend to get fixed quite quickly when they do turn out to be real bugs, whilst the same isn't true for some of the more exotic filesystems.
With so many different wierdo filesystems, each of them more complex than the other, the only chance we have when Fedora users file bugs involving them is to say "go tell upstream". Upstream's reaction varies from "we'll fix it" to "not interested in vendor kernels" (despite the fact that we don't patch their fs).
Dave
I googled for a while to get advantages of using ext2/3 and reiserfs, and found amazing stuff. Reiser appears to be much better in performance and trouble-shooting, including so called 'pilot error' too. Who mentioned that you have to pay for support? Ok, you've got to. But this only applies to general support - fixing bugs is in interest of developers, look in its utils ChangeLog.
It's for sure that the final decision is up to you. As for me, I choose reiser. I will post any issues I will deal with while using reiser. Ext3 has failed and that is it! I can not afford to let it fail again - it's too expensive.
Verified: Fedora installer (anaconda) installs to reiser well, without any problems. You just have to mkreiserfs prior to installation, and choose do NOT format a partition during install.
Sergey.
----- Original Message ----- From: James Wilkinson fedora@westexe.demon.co.uk To: For users of Fedora Core releases fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: ReiserFS & EXT2/3 issues Date: Thursday 01 December 2005 13:38
Mike McGrath wrote:
I use reiserfs and love it. I wish RedHat would be more open to using it, not even including it in the install seems a bit much to me. Though I think you can install with reiserfs if you do a linux reiserfs while booting from the CD, I haven't tested it.
The problem is "how many questions do you want there to be in the install?"
A lot of the work going into Fedora (and desktop Linux in general) is aimed at making it much easier for "non-techies", for want of a better word, to use. The idea is that some questions are inevitable, but they should be things that only the user can be expected to know (like their name and which ISP they're using).
Questions (or options) that relate to the way the *internals* of the machine behave mean new users will be asked to think about something they're not familiar with (so they'll think the install is hard). Note that documentation isn't the answer: it enables them to answer questions, it can't make the Right Answer immediately obvious.
I'm sorry that the Original Poster had problems with his ext3 installation (did he change the way it was listed in /etc/fstab?) I've heard of very few problems with ext3 (and about as many with reiserfs), and many of them turned out to be "pilot error".
For most users, it's simpler for Fedora to make the choice for them.
James.
E-mail address: james | I suppose if one has to go mad, slowly is the way to @westexe.demon.co.uk | go. You wouldn't want to rush going mad, you might
| miss some of the good bits. | -- Paul Tomblin
Sergey wrote:
I googled for a while to get advantages of using ext2/3 and reiserfs, and found amazing stuff. Reiser appears to be much better in performance and trouble-shooting, including so called 'pilot error' too.
You have to be a little careful comparing ext2/3 and reiserfs3. Ext2/3 hasn't stood still, and has optional features such as dir_index which uses hashed b-trees to speed some things up.
See man tune2fs or man mk2efs for details.
But in general, if your Google results don't mention these features, and aren't on a recent 2.6 kernel, treat them as purely of historical interest.
James.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 06:01, Sergey wrote:
It's for sure that the final decision is up to you. As for me, I choose reiser. I will post any issues I will deal with while using reiser. Ext3 has failed and that is it! I can not afford to let it fail again - it's too expensive.
I've used both for a long time and have to think that you just had a rare case of bad luck with whatever went wrong on your ext3 partition, not a statistically valid sample. I've seen plenty of power-related crashes that required fscks, but they always recovered the data.
I do recommend backups of anything important, though. In my case the filesystems have been more reliable than the underlying hardware. Using backuppc http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ is painless once you set it up.
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:01:43PM +0500, Sergey wrote:
It's for sure that the final decision is up to you. As for me, I choose reiser. I will post any issues I will deal with while using reiser. Ext3 has failed and that is it! I can not afford to let it fail again - it's too expensive.
Not once did you mention which bugzilla you filed about this ext3 problem.
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:01:43PM +0500, Sergey wrote:
It's for sure that the final decision is up to you. As for me, I choose reiser. I will post any issues I will deal with while using reiser. Ext3 has failed and that is it! I can not afford to let it fail again - it's too expensive.
Not once did you mention which bugzilla you filed about this ext3 problem.
Dave
Possibly because he did not file one.
BTW, why do you presume to place such a responsibility on him?
Mike
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:36:21AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Possibly because he did not file one. BTW, why do you presume to place such a responsibility on him?
You know a bug, you want it fixed, you file a bug report. Even with the best intentions, it's hard for developers to keep track of things things from outside of the system -- that's why there *is* a system.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:36:21AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Possibly because he did not file one. BTW, why do you presume to place such a responsibility on him?
You know a bug, you want it fixed, you file a bug report. Even with the best intentions, it's hard for developers to keep track of things things from outside of the system -- that's why there *is* a system.
I don't see where he ever said he wanted ext3 fixed, so I don't see where he has any obligation to file a defect report.
I have been a developer myself since 1980, so I think I know why defect tracking systems exist.
Mike
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:36:21AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
It's for sure that the final decision is up to you. As for me, I choose reiser. I will post any issues I will deal with while using reiser.
Ext3 has > failed and that is it! I can not afford to let it fail again - it's too > expensive.
Not once did you mention which bugzilla you filed about this ext3 problem.
Possibly because he did not file one.
BTW, why do you presume to place such a responsibility on him?
How do you propose we fix bugs that don't get reported ?
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:36:21AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
It's for sure that the final decision is up to you. As for me, I choose reiser. I will post any issues I will deal with while using reiser.
Ext3 has > failed and that is it! I can not afford to let it fail again - it's too > expensive.
Not once did you mention which bugzilla you filed about this ext3 problem.
Possibly because he did not file one.
BTW, why do you presume to place such a responsibility on him?
How do you propose we fix bugs that don't get reported ?
If he had said he wanted ext3 repaired, then this would be a valid response. However, he made no such request (AFAICT).
I know why defect tracking systems exist. I've been a developer since 1980, myself. I just don't understand why people presume that a defect report must be filed by anyone who finds a defect.
Mike
-
Dave Jones -
James Wilkinson -
Les Mikesell -
Matthew Miller -
Mike McCarty -
Mike McGrath -
Sergey