<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thank you very much for the input, I
think I will go with xfs . what do you think about xfs ? <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature"><b>Amit K Nepal<br>
Infrastructure Engineer (RHCE)<br>
<a href="http://www.omnovia.com">omNovia Technologies Inc.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.amitnepal.com"><br>
</a></b></div>
On 4/16/2013 9:56 AM, Matt Graham wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:405RDPq4Z2160S04.1366131385@web04.cms.usa.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Amit Nepal
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am thinking to use reiserfs in one of my storage servers. I have not
used reiserfs before and I am wondering how reliable it is. Any one have
any experience with the reliability of reiserfs?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I used it on my home machine for a few years. No problems, modulo a totally
unrelated kernel bug eating part of my / . reiserfsck --rebuild-tree got
everything back.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">it seems to be good for faster access
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I saw no measurable difference in wall-clock performance between ext3 and
reiserfs. I didn't do insane amounts of benchmarking, though. (There are 5
species of mendacity, each worse than the last: Lies, damned lies,
statistics, benchmarks, and vendor promises.) The main thing I got from the
community was that certain kinds of failures will totally hose your filesystem
if it's reiserfs and be at least partially recoverable if it's ext3.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>