[wellylug] Convert ReiserFS to Ext2

[andrej at paradise.net.nz]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 10:20, David Antliff wrote:

>  I'd have to disagree with your implied 'reliability' claim. I
> know quite a few people who have had fatal and complete
> corruptions with recent versions of ReiserFS. I would argue
> that ext2 is considerably more reliable. This is just in my
> own limited experience and therefore purely my opinion
> (although shared by many). I don't use ext2 any more either -
> I mostly use XFS. I have had one filesystem corruption with
> XFS two years ago, but since then it's performed normally.
Well, my limited personal experience with Reiser is
(I've only been using it since late 1999 on a few
of my personal machines, and all the machines that
I've had my hands on as an Administrator) that it
is way more robust than ext2 or ext3, I haven't 
tried XFS yet, though.

>  I am aware that my own experience does not prove anything...
Well, if we're down to be being as politically correct
as possible, why not just quit posting all together ;}


>  Also, I was under the impression that the presence of a
> journal can slow down overall filesystem throughput, since
> data is written to the journal as well as the final write. Is
> this true?
I've enjoyed reading the discussion ... fact is that
there's several independent posted results of benchmarks
of various file-systems on the same hardware (to make 
it sensible) and the same files in the same directory
structure, and Reiser beats both ext's overall, and
is only slightly slower than ext2 in writing BIG files.
Reisers greatest strength is small files - sizes around
2 K.

Resiers journal is merely a transaction record, it
doesn't preserve the "original" data that's being
altered.

>  David
Cheers,
Andrej