> I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is
> still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file
> system.
>
> Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought
> home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data
> profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples
> experience almost assuredly wont be the same.
In this discussion multiple people have defended reiserfs as a safe
filesystem. This is novel to me. Reiserfs is always bashed as being an
unsafe filesystem, developed with only speed in mind; a filesystem to
be used only by childish ricers or in specific situations where
filesystem performance is critical. For example, once I tried
genkernel (but did not like it and decide to go on with manual kernel
maintainance) and this message was in an ewarn
ewarn "This package is known to not work with reiser4. If you
are running"
ewarn "reiser4 and have a problem, do not file a bug. We know it does
not"
ewarn "work and we don't plan on fixing it since reiser4 is the one
that is"
ewarn "broken in this regard. Try using a sane filesystem like ext3 or"
ewarn "even reiser3."
They explicitly claim reiser4 is broken and insane, and their wording
implicitly suggests that ext3 is better than reiser3.
But in this discussion people are saying reiserfs is in fact safer than ext3.
I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
that either
A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
non-technical reasons.
or
B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs
fans appeared in this thread
Note: don't talk about the unfortunate horrible story of Hans' family,
the details of which we don't know. People were bashing reiserfs (both
versions 3 and 4) well before that.
