On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:26:12 -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>Yes but since these are production machines in a lab that requires
Here is a quote from Theodore Tso (http://thunk.org/tytso/ for bio) a
few months back in kerneltrap:
The fact that reiserfs uses a single B-tree to store all of its data
means that very entertaining things can happen if you lose a sector
containing a high-level node in the tree. It's even more entertaining
if you have image files (like initrd files) in reiserfs format stored
in reiserfs, and you run the recovery program on the filesystem.....
Yes, I know that reiserfs4 is alleged to fix this problem, but as far
as I know it is still using a single unitary tree, with all of the
pitfalls that this entails.
Now, that being said, that by itself is not a reason not to decide not
to include reseirfs4 into the mainline sources. (I might privately
get amused when system administrators use reiserfs and then report
massive data loss, but that's my own failure of chairty; I'm working
on it.) For the technical reasons why resierfs4 hasn't been
integrated, please see the mailing list archives.
Enough said? I think that backs up Marco pretty well, given that Tso is
a Linux kernel dev since '91.
I used to be an IBM Linux instructor until a few years ago and we
always warned about Reiser FS being too bleedin' edgy. Seems it hasn't
matured yet.....
>From the land "down under": Australia.
Do we look from up over?
