On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:14:07AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > Sven wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:14:57AM -0700, Laurent de Segur wrote: > > > What you are saying about ReiserFS is really unfortunate. When I > > > read the archive, there is no question that XFS is a lot more > > > reliable than ReiserFS. On the other hand, It seems that the Linux > > > community is promoting heavily ReiserFS vs XFS/JFS, and that seems > > > totally contradictory with the feedback I got so far. > > > > But then, i have one of those 40 GB IBM drives that might, or might > > not, have problems, with my previous disk, i had no problem, but i > > died during a apt-get run, not sure if it is related to reiserfs or > > something as i just did upgrade kernels, before that, i had no problem > > > with reiserfs, > > Neither did I until it decided to suddenly eat all the data on that > partition. (It also happened during a dist-upgrade, but I guess that's > just coincidence ;) I have no reason to believe there is a problem with
Is it really just coincidence, or is dist-upgrade doing something particular that reiserfs don't like ? Or maybe it is just that it is the only app that really is very disk intensive, unpacking files, replacing files, etc, ... Friendly, Sven Luther
