On 4/19/05, Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heinz Sporn wrote: > > >I also don't quite understand the suggestion to ignore "arguments about > >data corruption". These weren't arguments but simple facts. A lot of > >posters here experienced various troubles with almost every FS there is. > > > >That doesn't proof that any of the discussed filesystems is BAD - but it > >does proof that - excuse my english - shit happens and you might lose > >data regardless of the FS you went for. A 100% bulletproof FS simply > >seem not to exist. > > > > > > That was *exactly* my point. Even though you can find examples of > corruption with all filesystems, it is still a fairly rare occurrence in > the real world, at least with the ones we have been discussing. ( To be > precise, I should have said 'filesystem corruption', not data > corruption....anything that just journals meta-data has a fair chance of > losing/corrupting some data in a crash...it is the filesystem structures > that journaling is meant to protect in that case). > > So, since (paraphrasing your statement above), individual instances of > filesystem corruption should not be proof of a poor filesystem design, > then arguments to avoid a particular filesystem based solely on an > instance of corruption should be ignored. >
Hi, Is there anything that can be said about which FS might be more reliable if using some form of RAID? I don't know much about RAID yet but I'm starting to consider it for some of my setup here. Disks are getting very cheap. 1394/USB2.0 hot plugable devices sound good to me. I use 1394 already for audio recording under Linux. So, what about RAID. About even with all FS's? thanks, Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
