On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:55:49 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:25:28 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>>> Was there a reason you chose reiser over say ext3 when you were using
>>> F8?
>>
>> I have a 1T, four drive, software RAID5 that's been corrupted more than
>> once when I was running ext3 on it. Since I've moved to ReiserFS I
>> haven't had any corruption despite several massive rebuilds.
>>
>> ReiserFS seems to have more overhead but appears to be much more robust
>> than ext3.
>
> In most cases ReiserFS is much faster than ext3 and not too far behind jfs
> and xfs.
>
> Due the low quality on HP laptops, I have tried a number of different file
> systems, jfs and xfs did work so so, Reiser4 (rc1) was at least at the
> time too slow, ext3 did almost worse than Reiser4, only ReiserFS did
> recover without trouble and on a short time from the troubles caused by
> the hardware caused crashes.

Well I'll agree that ext3 is a little slow but I would have no fear
pulling the plug on this pc and ruining the ext3 slice. It's happened
several times in the past during power fluctuations until I went out and
purchased a UPS for this pc and I've never had damage on a large scale.