From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: berk walker Subject: Re: Fwd: Linux MD raid5 and reiser4... Any experience ? Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 06:26:36 -0500 Message-ID: <43BD026C.4050705@panix.com> References: <87oe2r2d93.fsf@rimspace.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87oe2r2d93.fsf@rimspace.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Pittman Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Daniel Pittman wrote: >Francois Barre writes: > >G'day Francois. > > > >>Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this >>solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in >>the months to come... Performance is absolutely not a big issue for >>me, but I would not appreciate any data loss. >> >> > >If your key interest is data integrity, and you don't care a fig about >performance, you would be much better off using ext3 on that filesystem. > >Depending on the test, ext3 may not do better than other filesystems, >but it is really quite hard to go past the long history of reliability >and stability that it has. > >It also has extremely good tools for recovering if something /does/ go >wrong, and is very resilient to damage on the disk. Reiserfs has, >historically, had some issues in those areas, especially in recovery >from corruption. > > > >>Furthermore, I would prefer not to use LVM nor any middle layer >>between MD and the fs... Is this middle layer *very* usefull when I'm >>sure my partitions layout will not evolve (e.g. only one enormous fs) >> >> > >Nope, pretty much no advantage at all, if you are just planning on using >this to store volume data. > > Daniel > > Ext3 does have a fine record. Might I also suggest an added expense of 18 1/2% and do RAID6 for better protection against data loss? b-