PDA

View Full Version : ReiserFS .vs EXT3



Shadowplane676
9th February 2006, 11:49 PM
ok people, this is a research poll for my Linux class. Which FS is better for FC4 or linux in general? ext3 or reiserFS? and please post a WHY> thanks fo ryour participation :)

marknvicf
10th February 2006, 03:07 AM
Simply a matter of support. Much more support and experience out there with EXT3.

reddazz
10th February 2006, 03:38 AM
I have a suspicion that this poll will be biased against reiserfs because Fedora defaults to ext3 and reiserfs is not even shown in anaconda unless you do "linux reiserfs" at the boot prompt. Most distros out there select reiserfs as the default filesystem instead of ext3. I am not sure why reiserfs isn't made available as part of the default anaconda installation, if there is someone who knows please enlighten me.

sej7278
10th February 2006, 01:27 PM
reiser is faster than ext3.

more people use ext3 as it is older so there are more tools that support it, oh and selinux isn't supported on reiser.

i personally use jfs.

sailor
10th February 2006, 05:40 PM
no tools to fix a reiserfs, although it appears to be a better file system. I will have to go with ext3 till that is changed.

BandC
10th February 2006, 06:43 PM
Here is an article I found on Google:

http://navindra.blogspot.com/2004/10/kde-dot-news-ext3s-miserable-failure.html

I don't know about the differences between the two file systems. But what I've read basically boils down to: Reiser is faster. However, if I remember correctly I also read something like ext3 is safer because of journaling. For example, if part of the file system is corrupted in Reiser that part is gone for good but under ext3 you may have a chance of getting the data back. I don't know how much of this is true. Perhaps an explanation from any file system gurus on here would be helpful.

reddazz
11th February 2006, 05:16 PM
Here is an article I found on Google:

http://navindra.blogspot.com/2004/10/kde-dot-news-ext3s-miserable-failure.html

I don't know about the differences between the two file systems. But what I've read basically boils down to: Reiser is faster. However, if I remember correctly I also read something like ext3 is safer because of journaling. For example, if part of the file system is corrupted in Reiser that part is gone for good but under ext3 you may have a chance of getting the data back. I don't know how much of this is true. Perhaps an explanation from any file system gurus on here would be helpful.
Reiserfs is also a journalling filesystem so the part about losing all data after corruption is not correct. What I wen on to read after my post above is that earlier versions of Reiserfs did not support Access Control Lists (some security implementation) so did not work with the likes of Selinux.

reddazz
11th February 2006, 05:19 PM
no tools to fix a reiserfs, although it appears to be a better file system. I will have to go with ext3 till that is changed.
Do you mean that there are not tools to repair reiserfs partitions? If thats what you meant then there is a set of tools called reiserfs-utils that ships with most distros.

tomcat
11th February 2006, 08:56 PM
I prefer ext3 to reiser. I found that recovering data from crashed ext3 partitions is easier and more secure than with reiserfs. ext3 will fall back to ext2 once it crashes and can be rebuilt from there. Reiserfs cannot fall back to a "lower scale" format. You will need to repair a reiserfs filesystem with a rescue/third party cd (like Knoppix) usually. And then, I experienced mroe data loss on recovered reiserfs than ext3 partitions.

Sure, Reiserfs is faster than ext3, but unless you are running a server, the speed you gain is not relevant. And after all, on a server you prefer security over speed. ;) Another problem is that you cannot hard-lock some files from your root directory on a reiserfs partition. The file will be restored to its pre-changed status. I tried to bypass it and never succeeded, which is not acceptable for me as I need to hard-lock some things on my machines.

Reiserfs is a good filesystem, but it is not as tested and stable as ext3 imho. It still has some way to go until I would trust my system to a reiserfs partition. :rolleyes:

QuantumKnot
12th February 2006, 12:48 PM
Given the choice of two, I'd go with ext3. It tends to be more stable and 'safer' than reiserfs, though the latter is faster when accessing lots of tiny files. Personally, I use XFS. The problem with these other journalling filesystems (like reiserfs, XFS, JFS) is that they only journal the metadata only but take a while to actually write the data from cache to disk. What will happen is that if there is a power failure after the metadata journal has been updated but before the syncing of cache to disk, then the next reboot and filesystem recovery will try to perform the operations in the journal on data that doesn't exist anymore in memory, hence you get random stuff written (in the case of XFS, all 0s) i.e. your files get corrupted. ext3 in data=ordered mode is much safer since a syncing of cache to disk is done before (or at the same time?) as a write to the journal, so there's no problem here, though this will mean slower performance with ext3 and more disk thrashing. I've been using XFS for a while and suffered some unexpected reboots and havent had any problems (yet).

elliss
12th February 2006, 01:13 PM
This page on the Fedora Project Wiki briefly touches on the ext3 vs. ReiserFS issue:

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraMyths