[NTLUG:Discuss] [Bulk] Re: ext3 waste disk spaces then Windows ME?

[Terry]

On 4/30/06, Terry <trryhend at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/06, Chris Cox <cjcox at acm.org> wrote:
> > Terry wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > Until such time as someone convences me that ReiserFS is as reliable
> > > and problem free as ext3 I'm sticking with tried and proven ext3.
> > > (Hard drives are cheap, I'm not all that concerned about wasting 5%).
> >
> > And who proved that ext3 was reliable?  Sorry... but the logic
> > is nonsense.
> >
> > Since reiserfs is the default for SUSE, pretty much all enterprise
> > deployments of SUSE use reiserfs.  With that said, my experiences
> > with Red Hat and reiserfs haven't been nearly as good since
> > ext3 is clearly Red Hat's favorite... they keep ext3 up to date,
> > but sort of care less about reiserfs.
> >
> > My best advice,  If you use SUSE, use reiserfs, it's very stable.
> > If you use Red Hat, use their choice, ext3.
> >
> > If you use something else... I'd say you have a world of choice.
> > But ext3 IS NOT more stable than reiserfs.  And it is wrong
> > to assume that.
> >
> > Reiserfs was deployed inside  Linux  dists before ext3.
> > Keep that in mind.
> >
>
> I was speaking from my experience only and have had good luck with
> extfs so far and reiserfs is new TO ME. The distros I've been using
> have mostly defaulted to extfs and so it's what I've used mostly,
> (about 85% extfs 15% reiserfs is my experience). Out of all the Linux
> systems I've built I only had one go belly-up and it was reiserfs and
> all I did was change the hard drive, I'm still not sure why I lost it,
> (I reused the hard drive afterward and it seemed ok), but I rebuilt
> the system as ext3 on a new HD. It was for someone else and it's still
> running ok far as I know, so that's what I'm basing my "experience"
> on.  I do have two now that are running reiserfs and they are doing ok
> so far so my one bad experience may have just been an isolated
> situation and like I said before I have no real clear idea what really
> happened to that one machine, I just ditched it and went with a fresh
> install on a new drive.
>
> The comment: "Reiserfs was deployed inside Linux dists before ext3."
> That is an interesting note, (to me), and a comment that makes me
> wonder why extfs is so widely used (if reiserfs is better ir more
> stable or reliable), but then, the answer may be that it wasn't always
> but is now, and I'll just bet the latter is the case.
>
> But...
> If you say reiserfs is reliable, it's good enough for me because I
> know that you have more experience - and especially with reiserfs -
> than me, so I stand corrected.  (And have pretty much changed my
> opinion.)
>
> And that is why I am with this group and on this list - to exchange
> ideas - to learn. And I have to admit that I have done very little
> research on the various file systems, there is lots that I do not know
> about the subject, but that may change in the [near] future.  :)
>

Just got to thinking that the question of whether extfs is more
reliable or stabile than reiserfs may be unanswerable or mute or the
wrong question period. Their track records [of the latest versions]
may be pretty much the same, [for all I know].  The advantages of one
over the other [more than likely] lie elsewhere.

A similar question: How about hard drives?
Which is more stable or reliable: scsi or ide or sata?   Probably all
about the same?  Who knows?....