mystified Posted February 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 No I didn't but you need to run [root@europa Download]# ./reiserfrag.pl / or /home or whatever. In otherwords you have to say which partition you wanted to check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 Ah OK, I just typed it without the actual partition. Doh! :P It finished real quick the first time also. Now it's taking a lot longer to run, so looks a bit more promising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Over the last 8 years, I've used ext2/3/ricer3 and 4/xfs/jfs Here is what I prefer [justin@kainos ~]$ cat /etc/fstab LABEL=/ / ext3 defaults 1 1 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 LABEL=SWAP-hda2 swap swap defaults 0 0 [justin@absolute ~]$ cat /etc/fstab /dev/rootvg/lv00 / ext3 defaults 1 1 /dev/md0 /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 /dev/rootvg/lv06 /opt ext3 defaults 1 2 proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 /dev/rootvg/lv02 /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/lv03 /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/lv05 /usr/local ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/lv04 /var ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/lv01 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/md2 /home ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/lv07 /xen ext3 defaults 1 2 [justin@pillar ~]$ cat /etc/fstab # This file is edited by fstab-sync - see 'man fstab-sync' for details /dev/rootvg/rootvol / ext3 defaults 1 1 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 /dev/homevg/homevol00 /home/amy ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/homevg/homevol01 /home/justin ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/optvol /opt ext3 defaults 1 2 none /proc proc defaults 0 0 none /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 /dev/rootvg/tmpvol /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/usrvol /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/localvol /usr/local ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/varvol /var ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/rootvg/swapvg swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/hda /media/cdrom auto pamconsole, fscontext=system_u:object_r:removable_t,exec,noauto,managed 0 0 /dev/fd0 /media/floppy auto pamconsole, fscontext=system_u:object_r:removable_t,exec,noauto,managed 0 0 [justin@echelon ~]$ cat /etc/fstab /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 / ext3 defaults 1 1 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol08 /apps ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol02 /home ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol07 /opt ext3 defaults 1 2 proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol03 /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol04 /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol06 /usr/local ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol05 /var ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol09 /vmware ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 swap swap defaults 0 0 If you can't tell which one I like ext3 I've had ricer3/4 and xfs explode more than once, (xfs only once) reiser borked more times on me than I care for so I will probably never use it again. jfs was just horribly slow so nien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think I found when I used Red Hat/Fedora, that the only choice you had was ext2 or ext3 and that was it. It did surprise me that they didn't offer anything else during the install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I think I found when I used Red Hat/Fedora, that the only choice you had was ext2 or ext3 and that was it. It did surprise me that they didn't offer anything else during the install. during the boot up of the cdrom linux reiser linux xfs linux jfs They just wont support it, and RHEL only comes with ext2/3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I thought it might be something like they had chosen a standard :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I thought it might be something like they had chosen a standard :P Yeah, ext3 is the standard for fedora/rhel several ext3 developers have @redhat.com in there e-mail addr :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 reiserfs(v3) only journals meta-data and not actual data, so it might be less robust against failure as ext3. I love ext3, it's tried and tested and quite fast. i keep hearing these weird rumours that Reiser4 is horribly slow...any thoughts on this....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Using Reiser 3.6 exclusively for some 3 years, and never, ever had the slightest problem- obviously I'm doing something wrong... Reiser 4 is simply not there yet, despite to what mr. Reiser thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystified Posted March 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 iphitus had been using Reiser 4 and he said it's very fast and he hadn't had any problems with it. I'm waiting until it's a little more stable to try it but I will definitely try it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I'd go reiser4 if i wasn't just too damn lazy to move all my data around and patch the kernel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystified Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I'm not 100% sure tyme but I think mm-sources has reiser4 support built in. Like you I think I've just been lazy about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) Reiser4 was ok when I used it, I never had problems, but that's definitely not to say it doesnt have any -- it certainly does. I believed at the time it was much better, but I really didnt have anything to compare it to, I'd only just got a new computer, on which, I had only used ext3 on mandrake for a short time. So whatever speed I thought it had, I never benched, so it may well have been entirely subjective or placebo. I wouldnt use reiser4 now though, after losing a lot of data in two hdd failures within two days, I guess I value my data a lot more than I did then and for reasons below, I wouldnt trust reiser4. Reiser4 uses much more CPU than any other filesystem i've seen, which isnt great under any circumstances. It hasnt been merged into vanilla, simply because of the arrogance of Hans Reiser, who has debated code review after review, insulted reviewer and reviewer, developers after developer and generally caused havok on the LKML. As a result, reiser4 still doesnt conform to kernel coding practices, and does many things which the developers consider incorrect and taboo. It has also been very problematic on architectures other than x86. The reiser4 fanbois will always say, it will be in the kernel soon. But it has been soon, for the last few *years*, and I definitely cant see it being merged anytime soon. At the rate it's going, I'd be surprised if it were merged this year. It hasnt developed the name Ricer4 for no reason at all. You're probably safer avoiding it and sticking with tried and true Ext3 and enabling a few options as listed here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12865&highlight= If you still want to use reiser4 after reading that, it's in: my -archck patchset, http://iphitus.loudas.com/archck.php the -mm kernel, which is extremely developmental: kernel.org a range of different patchsets on the gentoo forums which tend to come and go: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewforum-f-51.html If you're lucky enough to use Arch, pacman -S kernel26archck ;) James Edited March 19, 2006 by iphitus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 i'd still take reiser3 over ext3, imho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Yes, I agree ricer4 sucks :) I've used it through out different stages, even when they said it went final, I saw a lot of slow downs were I wouldn't expect them and overall thought it was crap. I remember when iph lost his hard drives, I asked if he had ricer4, he said yes, I said I figured :o That's not -v but you get it, ricer4 is not something I would recommend using. rieser3 will not be getting patches/enanchments unless someone out side the ricer4 club, takes it up. ext3 all the way, unless someone can port zfs over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.