From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030341AbWGaTYI (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:24:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030347AbWGaTYH (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:24:07 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:42688 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030341AbWGaTYG (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:24:06 -0400 Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion From: Alan Cox To: Clay Barnes Cc: Rudy Zijlstra , Adrian Ulrich , vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20060731191712.GE17206@HAL_5000D.tc.ph.cox.net> References: <1153760245.5735.47.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca> <200607241806.k6OI6uWY006324@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <20060731125846.aafa9c7c.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <20060731144736.GA1389@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060731175958.1626513b.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <20060731162224.GJ31121@lug-owl.de> <20060731173239.GO31121@lug-owl.de> <20060731181120.GA9667@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060731184314.GQ31121@lug-owl.de> <20060731191712.GE17206@HAL_5000D.tc.ph.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:42:02 +0100 Message-Id: <1154374923.7230.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ar Llu, 2006-07-31 am 12:17 -0700, ysgrifennodd Clay Barnes: > Of course, if ext3 were proven to be more robust against failures, I bet > the reiser team would be very interested in all the forensic data you > can offer, since, from what I've seen, they are always trying to make > reiser as good as possible---in speed, flexability, *and* robustness. Its well accepted that reiserfs3 has some robustness problems in the face of physical media errors. The structure of the file system and the tree basis make it very hard to avoid such problems. XFS appears to have managed to achieve both robustness and better data structures. How reiser4 compares I've no idea. Alan