-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Graeme Humphries schrieb:
> Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>> Reiser, to be frank, scares me.  I've heard too many horror stories
>> about changing on-disk formats and the like.  Both ext3 and XFS have
>> very solid, stable on-disk formats.

I agreed with this completely.

> Just thought I'd throw my $.02 in to this discussion, as it seems
> relevant. I used to use Reiser for all my systems, and laughed off the
> issues other people reported. However, recently I had a fairly serious
> amount of data loss due to a power outage when using Reiserfs (on Ubuntu
> Breezy, 2.6.12 kernel, so not old tools), and I've since switched my
> important data to XFS. It looks like Reiser (v3 at least) doesn't have
> the level of atomicity I'd expect from the filesystem, and so even after
> running their recovery tools, I lost a whole tree worth of data.

Also had some fatal crash on one of my testboxes ( ... phew ... ;-) ).

Since then I stay pretty conservative and use ext3 for most of my
servers, and xfs for the special cases ...

It also scares me to hear of the "bad vibes" between the
linux-kernel-developers and Hans Reiser.

Nothing against the advantages of its design, but noone asks you for the
performance values when you just lost a whole important filesystem.

For the initial question:

I'd take ext3 or xfs for that holdingdisk.

Greets, Stefan.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEKDPL0mmG+9CBTHYRAodcAJ9bHe1pPRhGhNm4x46pUc+CwsLjoQCfekwL
AtSCGZ6psv9OLW5cl3BTWgE=
=BluX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----