From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 8 22:17:00 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAAB16A41C for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:17:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD9843D48 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:16:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout07/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id j58MGukX003403; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (pool-68-161-69-6.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.69.6]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin08/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id j58MGsQl019541; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:16:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <42A767C9.80507@jim-liesl.org> References: <42A767C9.80507@jim-liesl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5A07F9D9-CB9C-419D-911C-E4FF6BC80540@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:16:53 -0400 To: secmgr , Pierre DAVID X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Show stopper for large disks with 5.4-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:17:00 -0000 Within the space of about 10 minutes this article appeared here, On Jun 8, 2005, at 5:48 PM, secmgr wrote: > Actually it's a very valid choice. At this time, Linux offers > ext3, XFS (from SGI), JFS (from IBM) and RieserFS as journaled file > systems (as in no fscking fsck). JFS, XFS and RieserFS offer very > good performance with big directories (like Maildir style mailboxes > could create) and recover from unexpected outages quickly (journal > replay to last checkpoint is typically seconds) and robustly. In > fact, if I were to deploy a large Maildir system, where users could > have thousands of files per directory, I would definitly be looking > at JFS, XFS or Rieser. Linux also has a WORKING logical volume > manager, and a WORKING s/w raid5 whose performance is close to all > but the most high end RAID controllers. But I digress. ...and this one on a NetBSD list: Subject: Re: google's summer of code makefs extension To: None From: Christos Zoulas List: netbsd-users@netbsd.org Date: 06/09/2005 00:18:00 In article <20050608162224.GA6831@ispid.com.pl>, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: >On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:01:55AM -0500, Greg Naughton wrote: >> Reiserfs would be fun. > > Will you? ;) Even that simpler (I suppose, it's simpler...) 3.5.23... Please don't. If you really want, first fix reiserfs on linux so that: 1. It has an fsck that works instead of spending 18 hours or an 1T filesystem only to proclaim in the end that it cannot be fixed. 2. Does not turn data into trash after a few weeks of heavy filesystem use. christos ----- I haven't used anything but ext2/3 on Linux, so I don't have any axes to grind one way or the other, but there definitely seems to exist some very different perspectives on how stable and robust ReiserFS is. :-) -- -Chuck PS: I'm not interested in spreading platform-specific FUD, but these two messages arriving in my inbox almost at once do make quite a contrast.