Steffen Barszus wrote:
If you are using LVM for your disks you should use reiser or ext-fs (2 or 3) because they can be resized - reiser whn mounted, ext2/3 only when unmounted (or with a kernel patch when mounted). See the LVM howto for details. I personally had some kernel panics with ext3 on some disks but not with ext2, using ext3 on the same computer but another disks worked fine, using both were the same: working on one, panic on the other.Am Sonntag, 7. September 2003 10:05 schrieb Emil Naepflein:On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:06:32 +0300, Lauri Tischler <lauri.tischler@efore.fi> wrote:I've been using reiserfs for /video for sometime now, appears to work ok. Now I'm about to add some more disk into the box. Any pros or cons about reiserfs versus ext3 ?I am a bit late, but may be it helps. I have recently upgraded my server to 6 250 GB disks in Raid5 configuration. During this process I evaluated ext3, reiserfs and xfs. For tests I used the bonnie. The result was that ext3 was the best compromise. Reiserfs was slow on writes but very fast on file creation/deletion. XFS had a similar read/write speed as ext3 but was DEAD slow on file creation and deletion. File deletion must be fast because VDRs file removal in the background may block other actions. I had used Reiserfs for more than 2 years. I had some file losses with an older Reiserfs. I now switched to ext3 completely and had no problems so far. I have disabled the fscks with tunefs. Emil
Hmm I have some problems with ext3 here. I suppose its the writing of the journal. I get full speed at copy in the beginning and after an amount of time the speed breaks down and after that it speeds up again. Very annoying. I want to test XFS later and see if it is better. Reiser is Ok for small files and a lot of them, but i don' have a lot of small files with vdr and i had some bad experiences with an older version of reiser. The only problem i may have with XFS could be compatibility... (could there be any backdraws in that direction ?)