Reiserfs vs ext3

[n6]

My general experence is:

ReiserFS is very fast, but EXT3 is more stable, if your machine gets 
power off, with ReiserFS in mt experence  your gona have issues. but 
thats just my experiences.


-Nex6

Jimmie Houchin wrote:

> 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 upon me.
>
> 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.
>
> Jimmie Houchin
>