From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030367AbWGaW5E (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:57:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030371AbWGaW5D (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:57:03 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.193]:2082 "EHLO wx-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030367AbWGaW5B (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:57:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=h7sraXdZMxQqOkwStxtg7NlhGg43rXgAa8PfXlRxdZh5xYjmTqBnp35QyQBBdWLJbGRvVdsLe0ECFuz4aQ7zMY/9+BcqpUisqg/oeOJAm7pA1kJNqOofG36Ba8cLKxvtDD0ojaNyVDwwVxc4lA2ui4BsD7l/uue6g2/PcK33smw= Message-ID: <5c49b0ed0607311556s50b77c07o150497f8e4bd3fd3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:56:50 -0700 From: "Nate Diller" To: "Jeff V. Merkey" Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion Cc: "Gregory Maxwell" , "Alan Cox" , "Clay Barnes" , "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: <44CE7C11.7020202@wolfmountaingroup.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1153760245.5735.47.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca> <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> <1154374923.7230.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44CE7C11.7020202@wolfmountaingroup.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/31/06, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > On 7/31/06, Alan Cox wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > > > Citation? > > > > I ask because your clam differs from the only detailed research that > > I'm aware of on the subject[1]. In figure 2 of the iron filesystems > > paper that Ext3 is show to ignore a great number of data-loss inducing > > failure conditions that Reiser3 detects an panics under. > > > > Are you sure that you aren't commenting on cases where Reiser3 alerts > > the user to a critical data condition (via a panic) which leads to a > > trouble report while ext3 ignores the problem which suppresses the > > trouble report from the user? > > > > *1) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf > > Hi Gregory, Wikimedia Foundation and LKML? > > How's Wikimania going. :-) > > What he says is correct. I have seen some serious issues with reiserfs > in terms of stability and > data corruption. Resier is however FASTER, but the statement is has > robustness issues is accurate. > I was using reiserfs but we opted to make EXT3 the default for Solera > appliances, even when using Suse 10 > due to issues I have seen with data corruption and hard hangs on RAID 0 > read/write sector errors. I have > stopped using it for local drives and based everything on EXT3. Not to > say it won't get there eventually, but > file systems have to endure a lot of time in the field and deployment > befor they are ready for prime time. > > The Wikimedia appliances use Wolf Mountain, and I've tested it for about > 4 months with few problems, but > I only use it for hosting the Cherokee Langauge Wikipedia. It's > performance is several magnitudes better > than either EXT3 or ReiserFS. Despite this, for vertical wiki servers, > its ok to go out with, folks can specifiy > whether they want appliances with EXT3, Reiser, or WMFS, but iit's a > long way from being "cooked" > completely, though it does scale to 1 exabyte FS images. i've seen you mention the Wolf Mountain FS in other emails, but google isn't telling me a lot about it. Do you have a whitepaper? are there any published benchmark results? what sort of workloads do you benchmark? NATE