Hey folks,

I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and can't
seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.

I have reiserfs-utils installed.

Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it already
be supported by the CentOS kernel?

Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>

Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'


--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:25:23 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and can't
> seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.
>
> I have reiserfs-utils installed.
>
> Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it already
> be supported by the CentOS kernel?
>
> Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>
>
> Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'

Check the repositories for a reiserfs-aware kernel.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:14:19 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:25:23 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and can't
>> seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.
>>
>> I have reiserfs-utils installed.
>>
>> Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it already
>> be supported by the CentOS kernel?
>>
>> Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>
>>
>> Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'
>
> Check the repositories for a reiserfs-aware kernel.

Yeah... I've been working on getting the CentOS-plus kernel loaded.

I've got it set up but I'm not sure if I have my Yum priorities set up
correctly to update the Plus kernel correctly.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:08 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:14:19 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:25:23 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and can't
>>> seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.
>>>
>>> I have reiserfs-utils installed.
>>>
>>> Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it
>>> already be supported by the CentOS kernel?
>>>
>>> Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>
>>>
>>> Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'
>>
>> Check the repositories for a reiserfs-aware kernel.
>
> Yeah... I've been working on getting the CentOS-plus kernel loaded.
>
> I've got it set up but I'm not sure if I have my Yum priorities set up
> correctly to update the Plus kernel correctly.

Can't help with Yum. I used it when I messed around with either Deb or
Suse or Mandrake years ago but don't remember much about it.

Looks like you'll get it worked out. It's a learning experience.

Was there a reason you chose reiser over say ext3 when you were using F8?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:25:28 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:08 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:14:19 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:25:23 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and
>>>> can't seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.
>>>>
>>>> I have reiserfs-utils installed.
>>>>
>>>> Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it
>>>> already be supported by the CentOS kernel?
>>>>
>>>> Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>
>>>>
>>>> Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'
>>>
>>> Check the repositories for a reiserfs-aware kernel.
>>
>> Yeah... I've been working on getting the CentOS-plus kernel loaded.
>>
>> I've got it set up but I'm not sure if I have my Yum priorities set up
>> correctly to update the Plus kernel correctly.
>
> Can't help with Yum. I used it when I messed around with either Deb or
> Suse or Mandrake years ago but don't remember much about it.
>
> Looks like you'll get it worked out. It's a learning experience.
>
> 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.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

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.

--

//Aho

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.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> 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.

Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:29 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?

No but there wasn't any mention of multiple users writing simultaneously
to the drive on J.O. Aho's crashing HP laptop.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:29 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?
>
> No but there wasn't any mention of multiple users writing simultaneously
> to the drive on J.O. Aho's crashing HP laptop.

Just wondering if it was the situation or the hardware that was causing
the corruption in my case.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:39:38 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:29 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?
>>
>> No but there wasn't any mention of multiple users writing simultaneously
>> to the drive on J.O. Aho's crashing HP laptop.
>
> Just wondering if it was the situation or the hardware that was causing
> the corruption in my case.


I think it's ext3 under load. XFS or in your case reiserfs is a much
better choice.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:06:13 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:39:38 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:29 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?
>>>
>>> No but there wasn't any mention of multiple users writing
>>> simultaneously to the drive on J.O. Aho's crashing HP laptop.
>>
>> Just wondering if it was the situation or the hardware that was causing
>> the corruption in my case.
>
> I think it's ext3 under load. XFS or in your case reiserfs is a much
> better choice.

I haven't had a bit of trouble with large ext3 partitions on hardware RAID
setups. I think it's the combination of load, the software RAID and the
filesystem. Like the added overhead of the RAID is causing a delay in the
journaling under ext3.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

>>> Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?
>> No but there wasn't any mention of multiple users writing simultaneously
>> to the drive on J.O. Aho's crashing HP laptop.
>
> Just wondering if it was the situation or the hardware that was causing
> the corruption in my case.

No, just one user, me.
I had quite low disk activity on most of the crashes, in worst case just
one program that had disk activity plus what the system does in the
background like logging.



--

//Aho

I'm not sure what you mean by "multiple people writing to it", but if you mean multiple systems mounting the drive, that is a major no-no unless you're running a cluster filesystem like gfs. Now, you can share a folder (like with samba or nfs) and mount that share, but you never want to mount a reiser or ext3 partition on more than one system. That leads to data corruption.