From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Barre Subject: Re: Fwd: Linux MD raid5 and reiser4... Any experience ? Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:21:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87oe2r2d93.fsf@rimspace.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87oe2r2d93.fsf@rimspace.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 2006/1/5, Daniel Pittman : > 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. > [...] Well, as far as I understood it (that is, not so far :-p), reiser4 seemed to have a stronger and more efficient journal than ext3. That is not what everyone believes, but reiser4 was to be designed that way more or less... But I guess that ext3 and its very-heavily-tested journal can still be more trusted than any newcomer. Truth is, I would have been glad to play with reiser4 on a large amount of data, just because I was interrested on the theories behind it (including the database-filesystem strange wedding Hans tried to organize). Maybe it's too great a risk for a production system. Well, anyway, thanks for the advice. Guess I'll have to stay on ext3 if I don't want to have nightmares... Best regards, F.-E.B.