jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

dunno about easier or more reliable there were some issues w/ Reiser on 9.1 , however, there is a new version due out soon-ish that is supposed to do everything but the dishes and floors or windows. To be called IIRC Reiser 4 . haven't seen any more since the info in one of the Linux-magazines. But it sounded yummy... faster, cooler, better ... uh no, wait that was the 6 billion dollar Man or Woman, I forget which ;^)

Reiser 4??? Isn't that one of the planets on Star Trek? ;-)

ahh... not to worry about raid thing, can't use it anyway... the options would allow me to do anything.... On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:03:30 -0600, devosc wrote:

Ok.. well I think that I've been susceptible to the power related issue corrupting th hd and recently when it happened I wasn't able to recover ( i got kicked out of graphical boot mode).

So I've now got a new power supply (400W continous supply) and a Seagate hard drive (with S.M.A.R.T).

So I would like to install the new Seagate drive as my master, and at this moment have the choice for file sys.

I also have an existing WesternDigital hd (which I don't think has S.M.A.R.T support)

But in my bios I've enabled S.M.A.R.T, and I'm hoping that [a] there are no real conflicts, e.g. because one drive supports it and the other doesn't, because [b] I'm going to also enable smartd in YaST.

the WesternDigital, I'm using as my slave drive, but given its history I'm weary about even assigning any partitions to this drive, and am thinking of it as merely a dumping ground for my backup data. This drive is currently reiser.

I was told that ext3 has journalling stuff so as to help it recover... but then from a thread here I was under the impression that reiser may also do something similiar, in particular in response to a question about recovering from hard reboots.

I use the machine as a local development server so it is on 99% of the time..

So just stick with reiser and hope for the best ?

G.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:50:44 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:

...

...

I saw a thread a while back about reiser, and then I also saw a comment that ext3 is also a reiser variant, so which one to choose?

I've had a couple of instances where the hd got corrupted and I was unable to recover the disk, in both cases reiser was the file sys.

If I now choose ext3, will trying to recovery the disk be any harder, easier, or more reliable? EXT3 is NOT a reiser variant. It is a journaling extension to EXT2. I won't comment on the reliability. We are running the BLU server with EXT3 and have not had a problem, but my home and work systems are SuSE with ReiserFS and I have not had any problems with ReiserFS per se. (In the

On Friday 11 February 2005 11:42 am, devosc wrote: past, I had both memory and power supply issues that caused some corruption that Reiser corrected).

-- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- devosc

-- devosc

Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Friday 2005-02-11 at 11:03 -0600, devosc wrote:

...

I was told that ext3 has journalling stuff so as to help it recover... but then from a thread here I was under the impression that reiser may also do something similiar, in particular in response to a question about recovering from hard reboots.

Both are journalling filesystems. Reiser is older, probably more advanced (or more features) and development is quite active. Ext3 is newer, but it is based on ext2 (no journalling), which is older (about the same as Linux, I think). An ext3 partition can be mounted as ext2, and there are more recovery tools. It is "probably" more stable, and also "probably", slower. Reiser is very good with small files.

More differences... SuSE admin book compares all FS available: read it.

I use both.

In chronological order .... Minix, ext, ext2, reiserfs3, ext3 and coming up reiserfs4. ext, ext2 and ext3 are related or at least from the same source, reiserfs4 is not backwards compatible with reiserfs3 and contains several speedups and refinements to reiserfs3 or more correctly a radical rewrite of reiserfs. Then there are JFS and XFS, again separate developments donated by IBM and SGI. Linux supports multiple filesystem types, so there is nothing to stop you mixing as your fancy takes you. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and Keen Flyer =====ALMOST ALL LINUX USED HERE, Solaris 10 SPARC is just for play=====

devosc wrote:

But in my bios I've enabled S.M.A.R.T, and I'm hoping that [a] there are no real conflicts, e.g. because one drive supports it and the other doesn't, because [b] I'm going to also enable smartd in YaST.

No need to worry, smartd will query the drives and determine their level of SMART support.

I was told that ext3 has journalling stuff so as to help it recover... but then from a thread here I was under the impression that reiser may also do something similiar, in particular in response to a question about recovering from hard reboots.

Yes, ext3, xfs, reiserfs and jfs are all journaling file-systems. If you drive has genuine problems, they won't help you recover any better or any faster, but a 300Gb JFS filesystem will recover a lot faster from an unscheduled outage than a 300Gb ext2 ditto. JFS is IBMs Linux-port of HPFS w/journaling from OS2 Warp Server, and as such it goes quite way back. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - sign up for your free 30-day trial now!

Per Jessen wrote:

JFS is IBMs Linux-port of HPFS w/journaling from OS2 Warp Server, and as such it goes quite way back.

That is interesting info. I always liked HPFS, now I'm going to have to check out JFS. -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871