<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>Re: [TLUG]: Re: reiserfs</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So my reason for originally going REISERfs was the online resize since it seemed I was constantly expanding the raid. Does ext3 now support it?<BR>
<BR>
Dave Bour<BR>
Desktop Solution Center<BR>
905.381.0077<BR>
dcbour@desktopsolutioncenter.ca<BR>
<BR>
For those who just want it to work...<BR>
Giving you complete IT peace of mind.<BR>
<BR>
(Sent via Blackberry - hence message may be shorter than my usual verbose responses)<BR>
PIN 3010A5AF (as of June 12, 2006) <BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-tlug@ss.org <owner-tlug@ss.org><BR>
To: tlug@ss.org <tlug@ss.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Oct 13 10:36:23 2006<BR>
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: Re: reiserfs<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:23:48PM -0400, Dave Bour wrote:<BR>
> What does one call a large file system.<BR>
><BR>
> I've 2 3TB systems running on adaptec hardware raid cards, with lvm2 running reiserfs3 on top of that. Hiccup every 3 - 4 months and I know I got to change but the question is to what<BR>
><BR>
> And the cost of another raid setup not to mention insufficient power too during the cutover is the next item to contend with<BR>
<BR>
I know I changed from reiserfs3 to ext3 on every system I dealt with a<BR>
few years ago due to problems with reiserfs3. I tried XFS a couple of<BR>
years ago, but ended up having to convert that to ext3 as well due to<BR>
XFS bugs in 2.6.1-10ish range. I gave up waiting for someone to fix<BR>
whatever was cousing corruption and out of memory errors and hangs and<BR>
all that. I think it may have been tracked down by now as having had to<BR>
do with the size of allocations xfs does in some cases being larger than<BR>
one page of ram, causing severe memory fragmentation in the kernel and<BR>
evenrually making it unable to get a single block the size it wanted. I<BR>
think they no longer allocate large chunks of memory that way in XFS.<BR>
Unfortunately that turned me of using XFS for a while. I have not tried<BR>
JFS yet. ext3 works for me though, even if it isn't the fastest or<BR>
anything. It works, it does ACL, works with NFS, and doesn't seem to<BR>
break, and if it does have a problem, fsck actually works reliably on<BR>
ext3 unlike some filesystems I have tried.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Len Sorensen<BR>
--<BR>
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: <A HREF="http://gtalug.org/">http://gtalug.org/</A><BR>
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns<BR>
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: <A HREF="http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists">http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>