[CentOS] Re: Upgrade RedHat 9 to Fedora

[sudo Yang]

On 8/3/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> sudo Yang <sudoyang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ext3 wasn't supported in RH 7.1.
> 
> The Anaconda installer didn't support it.
> But the kernels had support for it.
> 
> You could make any Ext2 filesystem into Ext3 very easily,
> except the root filesystem itself.
> 
> > This is very good info about XFS, so thanks for the info.
> > I know it has made it into the standard kernel tree.
> 
> IMHO, XFS has always been the most reliable/stable journaling
> filesystem in Linux.  The lack of advanced features required
> for it in the Linux 2.4 kernel itself was always the issue.
> SGI got on-board with the 2.5 development really quick, and
> a lot of the VFS features in 2.6 owe their thanx to SGI.

Does XFS do data journaling (ReiserFS 4 is supposed to do this at minimal cost)?

> > How's the development effort on it as of late?
> 
> Understand that XFS development was pretty straight forward.
> Unlike Ext3, they had already dealt with the quota and ACL
> issues on Irix, and written that code.
> Unlike ReiserFS, the structure hadn't changed a bit.
> And unlike JFS from OS/2, XFS came from Irix, a UNIX
> platform.
> [ IBM's move to port JFS from OS/2 in 1999, instead of AIX,
> had to do with Monterey, their joint contract with SCO that
> IBM broke later ]
> 
> > Wonder why RedHat chose not to support anything else except
> > for ext2 and ext3.
> 
> Proven, reliable, etc..., and Tweedie (who largely came up
> with Ext3) works at Red Hat.  I love the fact that I can
> always break down to a full Ext2 fsck if I need to for Ext3.
> 
> One of the reasons I refuse to use ReiserFS has nothing to do
> with its kernel/journal code -- which from what I've seen, is
> far better than JFS and many others (possibly even Ext3) --
> but the off-line tools _lag_ the kernel/journal code.
> 
> I.e., ReiserFS is typically fine if the journal recovers.
> And ReiserFS does a good job in testing if it should use its
> journal are not (arguably better than Ext3).  But the
> off-lines tools -- they are seemingly _never_ "up-to-date" so
> if the journal can't recovery, you're at their mercy.
> 
> > How stable are user-land tools for dealing with corrupted
> > XFS filesystems?
> 
> xfs_repair is a crapload better than ReiserFS' fsck.
> I have never, ever lost an Ext2/Ext3 or XFS filesystem to an
> fsck.ext2 or xfs_repair run.  The latter was even able to
> repair the 2 /var filesystems I had corruption on back with
> the XFS 1.0 bug.  And the former has saved me when I've had
> physical disk errors.
> 
> I've had toast after toast after toast with ReiserFS' fsck.
> In fact, when it comes to an inconsistent ReiserFS that
> (correctly) won't replay its journal, I clone it, mount it
> read-only and pull all the data off I can -- even though it's
> inconsistent.  Because so many ReiserFS fsck have left it
> totally inconsistant and umountable on me.
> 
> > This is one area of ReiserFS that still needs a lot of
> > work.
> 
> Thanx because Hans Reiser believes filesystems should be
> redesigned every 5 years.
> 
> Ext2 (including Ext3) and XFS have had the same structure
> since the mid-'90s.  Ext3 underwent a run-time change at
> kernel 2.2 (circa 1998), and XFS underweant a run-time change
> at XFS 1.1 (i.e., circa 2002 / Red Hat Linux 7.2).
> 
> > We've been running ReiserFS in very active systems
> > for the past 4+ years.  For the most part, it has been
> > fairly good to us.
> 
> As long as the ReiserFS journal can recover, I think it's a
> great OS.  Reiser & team put in the time to make a good
> driver and recovery logic.  I won't fault them there, and I'd
> say it's probably better than Ext3's basic approach.
> 
> > We've lost about 5 systems we could not recover using these
> > tools (sometimes these tools did more harm than good).
> 
> Exactly!  Because the focus is _never_ on the off-line tools.
> And it is unlike that will _ever_ change.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
> mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
> http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>