Reiserfs vs ext3

n6 n6 at
Mon Mar 21 21:57:37 UTC 2005

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.


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

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list