From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:47:18 +0300 Message-ID: <3E496F66.9050603@namesys.com> References: <3E494808.413781E@interface-ag.com> <3E495CC6.8020202@namesys.com> <20030211144144.A5A9.MIKE@mystica.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030211144144.A5A9.MIKE@mystica.cx> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mike Hodson Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Mike Hodson wrote: > >In my years of running ext2 and ext3, I can't see any reason why you >would think they require fscks at every reboot. > Sorry, my experience with kernel hacking (I used ext2 for a long time while debugging reiserfs) led me to forget that it is possible to reboot for reasons other than that the kernel oopsed on my latest changes to it.;-) Now that we can user reiser3 while debugging reiser4, oopses are much less painful. I regret that you had a bad experience with reiserfs. I have never seen reiserfs convert a partition to nothing but nulls. Are you sure that you were not repartitioning at the time you had this experience? I don't mean to slam ext2, sorry if it sounded like that, I just don't think that being unwilling to run fsck after bad blocks occur is a reasonable complaint about our design. Unfortunately, fsck programs take a long time to mature, and ext2's fsck is more mature than ours. It is important that users use the latest fsck. With reiser4 we have built into the node format a number of features that will make reiser4 fsck more effective than reiser3. -- Hans