Re: unix or linux?

From: Alan Hicks (1001298936_at_carrier.lizella.net)
Date: 02/18/04 

Date: 18 Feb 2004 07:30:09 -0600

In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, you wrote:
>
>>>bad things about ReiserFS. My experience with Linux is that
>>>ReiserFS is better at performing most tasks faster than XFS.
>>
>>
>> Any news on which is more reliable?
>
> Not sure. But I know reiserfs takes longer than most journalled FS's to
> recover from a crash. For example, reiserfsck took about a minute to
> check a 3-4 GB partition. And I've heard stories that when ReiserFS
> itself crashes due to a kernel bug, very very BAD things happen, like
> every file on the filesystem winds up in lost+found.

I can't speak for XFS, but as a reiserfs user on Slackware for the last
two years or so, I can honestly say I have never once had a reiserfs
file system crash, or loose data. It is fast, lean, and stable, at
least in its current form. All bets are off with reiserfs 4 and it's
pluggable architecture.

I have heard of one person who had a reiserfs file system crash, but it
didn't take him very long to recover. Granted, he's one of those people
who is constantly mucking with something, and is more likely to be the
cause of the crash then whatever file system he was using at the time.

> But, neither
> journalling NOR softupdates is a substitute for proper backups. He who
> doesn't regularly back up his important data is a fool, for sure.

Agreed. 

-- 
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5

Relevant Pages