Reiserfs vs ext3
jhouchin at cableone.net
Thu Mar 10 03:19:43 UTC 2005
My experience with several years with ReiserFS was generally good. But
recently I had a problem with a hard drive beginning to fail and a bad
block developed. ReiserFS became very unfriendly due to the bad block.
When ReiserFS discovered the bad block it ceased working at all and
required that I run some program to find all the bad blocks and a bunch
of other stuff before it would ever again run reiserfsck (or whatever it
was called). It was an unpleasant process and left a poor impression
I have had computers a long time and have had hard drives fail. But
never before have I had a filesystem plain refuse to operate due to a
bad block. Yes, I understand there is potential/probable data loss due
the development of bad blocks. But to refuse to run a check, mount and
let me have access to what was still good, was very, very bad to me.
After that experience, I immediately reinstalled Ubuntu on my server and
used XFS. On my desktop I went back to ext3.
I can only speak of my experience. Before the bad blocks I gave no
concern and had no problems with ReiserFS. After it, I wasn't so
confident. This was with ReiserFS 3. I have no comments on ReiserFS 4,
as I do not know how it handles bad block situations. Hopefully it will
handle them more gracefully.
I did eventually recover my data and move to a different drive, but it
was more effort than necessary.
Hope this helps.
More information about the ubuntu-users