[linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Yanick Quirion]

Hi all,

Could you please tell what is the best filesystem for linux between ext3 and reiserfs?

I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and reiserfs do not seems to support ACLs (I found some patches for kernel 2.4.21, but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel sources), but can be extend while it's online.

I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.

Thanks.

Regards,

-----------
Yanick Quirion
Administrateur Réseau/Network Manager
NEOKIMIA INC.
Institut de Pharmacologie de Sherbrooke
3e étage (Édifice Z5)
3001 12e avenue Nord
Sherbrooke, Québec
CANADA
J1H 5N4
 
Tél.:    +1 819 820-6040
Direct:  +1 819 820-6855
Fax.:    +1 819 820-6841
 
email: Yanick.Quirion@neokimia.com

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Jose Luis Domingo Lopez]

On Monday, 08 December 2003, at 09:39:38 -0500,
Yanick Quirion wrote:

> Could you please tell what is the best filesystem for linux between ext3 and reiserfs?
> 
It is hardly to find something that is "best" by everyone standards of
"best". Maybe ext3 is better suited for your particular setup, or maybe
is reiserfs what fits best to your configuration. Just now the features
of each filesystem, do some "real-world" usage or test on both, and
decide for yourself.

> I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and reiserfs do not seems to support ACLs (I found some patches for kernel 2.4.21, but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel sources), but can be extend while it's online.
> 
You will have to take into account those existing and missing features
of both filesystems and see if you absolutely need one of them that is
not available in one of the two. Maybe it would be nice to have support
for quotas and ACL on reiserfs, but if you don't need these features,
why bother ?. Stick with what is best for _your_ needs.

Greetings.

-- 
Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
Linux Registered User #189436     Debian Linux Sid (Linux 2.6.0-test10-mm1)

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi Yanick

On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 15:39, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.

I'm using ReiserFS on my LVM volume, having already used the 'extend
online' function. I don't really need ACLs currently.

Concerning stability: I've once had a crash due to a power loss. Then I
must have done something wrong with LVM. Anyway, I've lost many files,
but don't think that was ReiserFS's fault.

I'm also using ReiserFS on a (relatively) heavily used webserver (2x AMD
2000+, 120GB HDD, ~100 GB Traffic / Month) and have never had problems
(there w/o LVM, pure ReiserFS partitions).


Markus

RE: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Little, Chris]

It also depends on your workload.  If you are serving a large database,
reiser (the last i heard) is probably a bad choice. fwiw oracle won't
support performance issues if you are running on reiser.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Schiltknecht [mailto:markus@bluegap.ch]
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:51 PM
> To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs
> 
> 
> Hi Yanick
> 
> On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 15:39, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> > I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.
> 
> I'm using ReiserFS on my LVM volume, having already used the 'extend
> online' function. I don't really need ACLs currently.
> 
> Concerning stability: I've once had a crash due to a power 
> loss. Then I
> must have done something wrong with LVM. Anyway, I've lost many files,
> but don't think that was ReiserFS's fault.
> 
> I'm also using ReiserFS on a (relatively) heavily used 
> webserver (2x AMD
> 2000+, 120GB HDD, ~100 GB Traffic / Month) and have never had problems
> (there w/o LVM, pure ReiserFS partitions).
> 
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
> 

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Matt]

Reiserfs has in some cases better performance. But resiserfs (in 2.4)
has NO bad block management capabilities.. 


So, if your drive gets bad blocks, you can very quickly be rebuilding
your entire filesystem ( I lost a TB on a RAID where one drive developed
some bad blocks.)

Just keep in mind stability.

Matt Schillinger
mschilli@vss.fsi.com


On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 08:39, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Could you please tell what is the best filesystem for linux between ext3 and reiserfs?
> 
> I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and reiserfs do not seems to support ACLs (I found some patches for kernel 2.4.21, but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel sources), but can be extend while it's online.
> 
> I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -----------
> Yanick Quirion
> Administrateur Réseau/Network Manager
> NEOKIMIA INC.
> Institut de Pharmacologie de Sherbrooke
> 3e étage (Édifice Z5)
> 3001 12e avenue Nord
> Sherbrooke, Québec
> CANADA
> J1H 5N4
>  
> Tél.:    +1 819 820-6040
> Direct:  +1 819 820-6855
> Fax.:    +1 819 820-6841
>  
> email: Yanick.Quirion@neokimia.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/

RE: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi again,

On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 16:14, Little, Chris wrote:
> It also depends on your workload.  If you are serving a large database,
> reiser (the last i heard) is probably a bad choice.

why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be
considered more stable (in general).

Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison /
discussion on different filesystems?

Thanks for your suggestions

Markus

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Markus Schiltknecht]

On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 16:31, Matt wrote:
> So, if your drive gets bad blocks, you can very quickly be rebuilding
> your entire filesystem ( I lost a TB on a RAID where one drive developed
> some bad blocks.)

You must have been running RAID0, otherwise one drive wouldn't matter.

> Just keep in mind stability.

I'm removing harddrives with bad blocks immediately - and running RAID5.

I'm definitively not missing that feature ;-)

RE: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Little, Chris]

http://otn.oracle.com/oramag/webcolumns/2002/techarticles/scalzo_linux02.htm
l

you will probably have to join otn to be able to read the article, but i'm
not sure.

reiserfs appears to work really well for lots of small files, but performs
relatively poorly on a few really large files (ie database).  in terms of
performance oracle ranks them thusly

ext2
ibm-jfs
ext3
reiser

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Schiltknecht [mailto:markus@bluegap.ch]
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 9:26 PM
> To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
> Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs
> 
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 16:14, Little, Chris wrote:
> > It also depends on your workload.  If you are serving a 
> large database,
> > reiser (the last i heard) is probably a bad choice.
> 
> why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be
> considered more stable (in general).
> 
> Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison /
> discussion on different filesystems?
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
> 

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Matt]

On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 21:31, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 16:31, Matt wrote:
> > So, if your drive gets bad blocks, you can very quickly be rebuilding
> > your entire filesystem ( I lost a TB on a RAID where one drive developed
> > some bad blocks.)
> 
> You must have been running RAID0, otherwise one drive wouldn't matter.
> 
> > Just keep in mind stability.
> 
> I'm removing harddrives with bad blocks immediately - and running RAID5.
> 
> I'm definitively not missing that feature ;-)
> 

I was running RAID5.

Matt sChillinger

> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Markus Schiltknecht]

> I was running RAID5.

How is that possible? I mean, even if one drive fails completely, your
should still have all your data accessible.

I once managed to have two drives of a RAID5 failing on the exact same
blocks. However, that seemd to have to do with the IDE Bus. Because only
one drive really had bad blocks. I could easily acces the other drive
after a reboot. (And had full access to all data again).

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Spam]

>> > So, if your drive gets bad blocks, you can very quickly be rebuilding
>> > your entire filesystem ( I lost a TB on a RAID where one drive developed
>> > some bad blocks.)
>> 
>> You must have been running RAID0, otherwise one drive wouldn't matter.
>> 
>> > Just keep in mind stability.
>> 
>> I'm removing harddrives with bad blocks immediately - and running RAID5.
>> 
>> I'm definitively not missing that feature ;-)


> I was running RAID5.

Then  a  bad drive should not matter or you have done something wrong.
RAID5  has  redundancy for one drive so you should not loose any data.
But  agreed.  Bad  blocks  management  is  a  needed  feature  of  any
filesystem. Just as defragment support utils.

From what I understood is Reiser4 going to improve on all areas.

Performance wise no FS should be very slow on big files? Or what did I
miss?

> Matt sChillinger

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Chris Cox]

Yanick Quirion wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Could you please tell what is the best filesystem for linux between ext3 and reiserfs?
> 
> I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and reiserfs do not seems to support ACLs (I found some patches for kernel 2.4.21, but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel sources), but can be extend while it's online.
> 
> I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.
> 

If you are using SUSE, then use reiserfs.  It has ACLs and is mostly patched.

If you are using RH, then use ext3.  RH in the past has been known to have
a broken reiserfs (not known for keeping it patched).

In my performance benchmarks, I found reiserfs to be somewhere between jfs and ext3, where
ext3 was the fastest, but reiserfs doing exceptionally well on random file creates
and deletes.  Thought ext3 beats reiserfs in many of our tests, it was not by
an overwhelming margin.  We were very surprised by the lack of performance of JFS.. though
it did have the lowest CPU utilization of the 3.

We run SUSE primarily... therefore we use reiserfs (mostly with LVMs).
RH is sorta new to the LVM thing... so although we use ext3 on our RH systems,
most of them do not use LVM.  We have over 7TB of data that uses LVM with
reiserfs... we're quite pleased with the performance and capability.

We love the ability to do resize_reiserfs while the filesystem is mounted.
Constantly amazes the "Unix" purists.

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Spam]

> Yanick Quirion wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Could you please tell what is the best filesystem for linux between ext3 and reiserfs?
>> 
>> I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and
>> reiserfs do not seems to support ACLs (I found some patches for
>> kernel 2.4.21, but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel
>> sources), but can be extend while it's online.
>> 
>> I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.
>> 

> If you are using SUSE, then use reiserfs.  It has ACLs and is mostly patched.

> If you are using RH, then use ext3.  RH in the past has been known to have
> a broken reiserfs (not known for keeping it patched).

> In my performance benchmarks, I found reiserfs to be somewhere between jfs and ext3, where
> ext3 was the fastest, but reiserfs doing exceptionally well on random file creates
> and deletes.  Thought ext3 beats reiserfs in many of our tests, it was not by
> an overwhelming margin.  We were very surprised by the lack of performance of JFS.. though
> it did have the lowest CPU utilization of the 3.

> We run SUSE primarily... therefore we use reiserfs (mostly with LVMs).
> RH is sorta new to the LVM thing... so although we use ext3 on our RH systems,
> most of them do not use LVM.  We have over 7TB of data that uses LVM with
> reiserfs... we're quite pleased with the performance and capability.

> We love the ability to do resize_reiserfs while the filesystem is mounted.
> Constantly amazes the "Unix" purists.

Not  to  mention  that  the reiserfsck is one of the best fsck tools I
have  used.  This needs to be in consideration to, I think. Having not
tested JFS I will not reserve myself for that =)

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Markus Baertschi]

Yanick,

If you are looking for a stable filesystem and are not really worried
about performance I'd stick with ext3. If necessary you can get a kernel
patch to allow for online resizing.

If you have many small files and need the performance then reiser is an
option. I'm worried about data integrity with Reiser. Once in a while
a stories about lost files with Reiser pops up. I'll be more confident
when all these stories are a couple of years old. Loosing data is the one
thing I don't forgive a filesystem.

There is an extensive report on filesystem performance on
         http://fsbench.netnation.com/

Markus

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:39:38 -0500, Yanick Quirion wrote:

>Hi all,

>Could you please tell what is the best filesystem for linux between ext3 and reiserfs?

>I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and reiserfs do not seems to support 
ACLs (I found some patches for kernel 2.4.21, but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel 
sources), but can be extend while it's online.

>I'm just asking for your personal opinion and knowledge with them.

>Thanks.

>Regards,

>-----------
>Yanick Quirion
>Administrateur Réseau/Network Manager
>NEOKIMIA INC.
>Institut de Pharmacologie de Sherbrooke
>3e étage (Édifice Z5)
>3001 12e avenue Nord
>Sherbrooke, Québec
>CANADA
>J1H 5N4
> 
>Tél.:    +1 819 820-6040
>Direct:  +1 819 820-6855
>Fax.:    +1 819 820-6841
> 
>email: Yanick.Quirion@neokimia.com


>_______________________________________________
>linux-lvm mailing list
>linux-lvm@sistina.com
>http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/




--
  Markus Baertschi             Phone: ++41 (21) 807 1677
  Bas du Rossé 14b             Fax  : ++41 (21) 807 1678
  CH-1163, Etoy                Email: markus@markus.org
  Switzerland                  Homepage: www.markus.org

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Markus Baertschi]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:17:50 -0600, Chris Cox wrote:
>We love the ability to do resize_reiserfs while the filesystem is mounted.
>Constantly amazes the "Unix" purists.

This is the one feature I like most on my AIX boxes, where the stock
LVM & JFS setup has done this for more than a decade.

That a broken reiser on RH is the source of the occasiona data loss reported
is good possibility. But that means there were broken reiser implementations
out there of which RH assumed they were stable and they weren't.

Markus

--
  Markus Baertschi             Phone: ++41 (21) 807 1677
  Bas du Rossé 14b             Fax  : ++41 (21) 807 1678
  CH-1163, Etoy                Email: markus@markus.org
  Switzerland                  Homepage: www.markus.org

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Chris Cox]

Markus Baertschi wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:17:50 -0600, Chris Cox wrote:
> 
>>We love the ability to do resize_reiserfs while the filesystem is mounted.
>>Constantly amazes the "Unix" purists.
> 
> 
> This is the one feature I like most on my AIX boxes, where the stock
> LVM & JFS setup has done this for more than a decade.
> 
> That a broken reiser on RH is the source of the occasiona data loss reported
> is good possibility. But that means there were broken reiser implementations
> out there of which RH assumed they were stable and they weren't.


I have never experienced the data loss element, however, since
reiser3 does not do true data journaling, but only metadata, it is
well known fact that while reiser can bring the filesystem
integrity back to normal after a bad shutdown, some data loss
is possible.  This is usually true of any metadata only journaling
filesystem.  Reiser4 supposed fixes this and of course has that
whiz-bang plugins feature.  Could make reiser4 the best (feature wise).

I certainly have nothing against JFS or AIX.  I really like its ability
to dynamically grow without intervention (though that could give
some administrators a headache).

I can't say what's going on with reiserfs and RH... again, just
because of the "stories" I've heard and occasional "ewww's" I've
personally seen with RH, I just avoid it on RH.  They chose their
filesystem and that filesystem is ext3.  It would be foolish
to do anything else on RH.

I have seen problems with ext3 even under RH where we would lose
entire filesystems... but anytime I mention this, I'm always
trampled on... to tell you the truth, I suspect it is an error
in ext2 even... but that opinion really offends people.  I don't
use RH in general unless I have to (we're an ISV, so we support
everything).  But YMMV of course!

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Ajay Shekhawat]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:25:47AM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be
> considered more stable (in general).

Reiser has this "tail packing" option, as well as some other optimizations
that benefit sites with lots of small files (best example: Usenet feeds).
However, this can come at a price for really LARGE files (as a DB would need).

> Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison /
> discussion on different filesystems?

Checkout
	http://oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/

Since noone has mentioned XFS, let me throw in my recommendation for XFS.
XFS (like, probably, IBM's JFS) is a top-notch filesystem. 
Try it out in your scenario, you might like it.

Ajay

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Spam]

> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:25:47AM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>> why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be
>> considered more stable (in general).

> Reiser has this "tail packing" option, as well as some other optimizations
> that benefit sites with lots of small files (best example: Usenet feeds).
> However, this can come at a price for really LARGE files (as a DB would need).

  Yes,  both  tail  packing  and other options can be turned on/off at
  mount time if you need more speed or space etc..

>> Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison /
>> discussion on different filesystems?

> Checkout
> http://oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/

  Interresting  to  see  the  benchmarks.  But why is ext3 tested with
  several options and the other FS not? For example noatime and notail
  changes performance of ReiserFS too.
  
> Since noone has mentioned XFS, let me throw in my recommendation for XFS.
> XFS (like, probably, IBM's JFS) is a top-notch filesystem. 
> Try it out in your scenario, you might like it.

  How  are  the XFS fsck tools compared to the reiser ones? Reiserfsck
  has saved me on more than one occation =)

> Ajay

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Mike Williams]

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

On Monday 08 December 2003 16:26, Ajay Shekhawat wrote:
> Since noone has mentioned XFS, let me throw in my recommendation for XFS.
> XFS (like, probably, IBM's JFS) is a top-notch filesystem.
> Try it out in your scenario, you might like it.

XFS filesystems can't be shrunk, which I see as a *major* "flaw".
I agree that it's a very nice filesystem, but not being to resize it as I need 
rules it out entirely.

- -- 
Mike Williams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/1NolInuLMrk7bIwRAu7MAJ9vlxw2T8YMc7ad4t8zNBsALDgx5gCeNED6
kmCwkAEMPpC8cbLFAs5UDVc=
=zqwS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Yanick Quirion]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Shekhawat [mailto:ajay@cedar.Buffalo.EDU]
> Sent: 8 December, 2003 11:26
> To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs
> 
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:25:47AM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be
> > considered more stable (in general).
> 
> Reiser has this "tail packing" option, as well as some other
optimizations
> that benefit sites with lots of small files (best example: Usenet
feeds).
> However, this can come at a price for really LARGE files (as a DB
would
> need).
> 
> > Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison /
> > discussion on different filesystems?
> 
> Checkout
> 	http://oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/
> 
> Since noone has mentioned XFS, let me throw in my recommendation for
XFS.
> XFS (like, probably, IBM's JFS) is a top-notch filesystem.
> Try it out in your scenario, you might like it.


I'm currently testing XFS. It seems to be better than reiserfs, because
it supports ACLs and online resizing (I applied all patches with
success). But is XFS supports shrink? With reiserfs it possible to
shrink a filesystem, but this function doesn't seems to be available
with XFS.

Thanks

Yanick

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Ajay Shekhawat]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:20:26PM -0500, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> I'm currently testing XFS. It seems to be better than reiserfs, because
> it supports ACLs and online resizing (I applied all patches with
> success). But is XFS supports shrink? With reiserfs it possible to
> shrink a filesystem, but this function doesn't seems to be available
> with XFS.

No, you can't shrink an XFS filesystem.
But, with HDD prices falling, why would you want to? 
(just kidding :-)

I have put XFS on top of a 2TB LVM (which grew from 600GB to 2TB),
and it was a breeze.
Once we "lost" a pair of disks on a RAID5 together (dang Mylex controller!), 
and it wiped out the main superblock. But, with sweaty palms, I was able
to reconstruct the file system without any data loss.

The performance of XFS is great, at least for our application
(we have large image files). We tried ext2, ext3 and XFS, before
deciding on XFS. Even though (at that time) choosing XFS meant
downloading kernel patches from SGI and building and maintaining custom 
kernels, it was worth it.
As always, YMMV; don't take someone else's word for it, but instead
try it yourself before deciding.

Ajay

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Remco Post]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:19:10 -0600
Chris Cox <chris_cox@stercomm.com> wrote:


> I have never experienced the data loss element, however, since
> reiser3 does not do true data journaling, but only metadata, it is
> well known fact that while reiser can bring the filesystem
> integrity back to normal after a bad shutdown, some data loss
> is possible.  This is usually true of any metadata only journaling
> filesystem.  Reiser4 supposed fixes this and of course has that
> whiz-bang plugins feature.  Could make reiser4 the best (feature wise).
> 

unorderly shutdowns will, even will full journaling, lead to dataloss of all
data in the buffercache. Filesystem consistency is far more important,
having to resore any filesystem from tape is a pita. Especially ext2 was
very sensitive to unorderly shutdowns.

> I certainly have nothing against JFS or AIX.  I really like its ability
> to dynamically grow without intervention (though that could give
> some administrators a headache).

AIX LVM system (even booting from a LV, though not in the most elegant
fashion thinkable) is quite mature. It is one of AIX typical features I like
the most (unlike smitty... ;-)

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Remco Post

SARA - Reken- en Netwerkdiensten                      http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing  Tel. +31 20 592 8008    Fax. +31 20 668 3167

"I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer
industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer industry
didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Chris Cox]

Remco Post wrote:
...
> AIX LVM system (even booting from a LV, though not in the most elegant
> fashion thinkable) is quite mature. It is one of AIX typical features I like
> the most (unlike smitty... ;-)
> 

But you know... smitty makes some tasks on AIX easier.  Their file
formats for config info are quite verbose sometimes.  And there's
always the evil ODM.

RE: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Little, Chris]

on this topic, xfs was merged into 2.4

http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1751

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Cox [mailto:chris_cox@stercomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs
> 
> 
> Remco Post wrote:
> ...
> > AIX LVM system (even booting from a LV, though not in the 
> most elegant
> > fashion thinkable) is quite mature. It is one of AIX 
> typical features I like
> > the most (unlike smitty... ;-)
> > 
> 
> But you know... smitty makes some tasks on AIX easier.  Their file
> formats for config info are quite verbose sometimes.  And there's
> always the evil ODM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
> 

Re: [linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Andreas Dilger]

On Dec 08, 2003  17:29 +0100, Markus Baertschi wrote:
> If you are looking for a stable filesystem and are not really worried
> about performance I'd stick with ext3. If necessary you can get a kernel
> patch to allow for online resizing.
> 
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:39:38 -0500, Yanick Quirion wrote:
> > I know that ext3 can handle ACLs and not online fs extend, and reiserfs
> > do not seems to support ACLs (I found some patches for kernel 2.4.21,
> > but there are errors when I apply them to the kernel 
> > sources), but can be extend while it's online.

FYI - I read that the ext3 online extend code is in the latest RH rawhide
kernel.  I've been rather bad at maintaining that code, but Arjan (RH
kernel guy) updated the patch for the latest RH kernel.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/