Slashdot Mirror
Best Shrinkable ReiserFS Replacement?
paulkoan writes "I have been using ReiserFS for my file system across a few servers for some time now (follow the link below for details of my experience). I can't foresee the future of ReiserFS, but if I'm going to have to migrate as support diminishes, I'd like to begin that process now. My criteria are: in-kernel support, shrinkable, and has good recovery when the file system is not closed properly. That shrinkable requirement precludes a lot of options. What's a good replacement for ReiserFS?"
I initially chose ReiserFS because I was building a MythTV system and it was the recommended FS across the board, from small to large files. I've had good experiences with ReiserFS and it has had a pummeling. That MythTV box for example has a very volatile environment and loses power on a regular basis. I haven't lost any data through any of these outages.
Compare this to my brief foray into XFS on the same box, where 25% of the filesystem ended up in lost+found with numbers for filenames. When this happened a second time on a different system I decided XFS wasn't for me — and I really don't get the point of a journalled filesystem that will keep data relatively safe, but then remove any means to identify it when things go wrong.
But everyone has good and bad experiences with filesystems, ReiserFS included. XFS has a good rep, my experience aside.
I initially chose ReiserFS because I was building a MythTV system and it was the recommended FS across the board, from small to large files. I've had good experiences with ReiserFS and it has had a pummeling. That MythTV box for example has a very volatile environment and loses power on a regular basis. I haven't lost any data through any of these outages.
Compare this to my brief foray into XFS on the same box, where 25% of the filesystem ended up in lost+found with numbers for filenames. When this happened a second time on a different system I decided XFS wasn't for me — and I really don't get the point of a journalled filesystem that will keep data relatively safe, but then remove any means to identify it when things go wrong.
But everyone has good and bad experiences with filesystems, ReiserFS included. XFS has a good rep, my experience aside.
ReiserFS works. It is merged with the mainline kernel trunk so it will be able to secure enough man power to at least avoid bit-rot and incompatibility to future kernel versions. You don't have to worry about suddenly losing your files now Hans isn't involved in the project, some kernel modules have gone for years without an update and still work. I doubt that this will even become one of them since so many people are using this file system and lets face it, it is a good file system nomatter who wrote it (lets not forget he was a known arsehole before he killed his wife and it didn't matter then).
The worst thing that could happen is ReiserFS slowly falling into disuse and becoming deprecated in three or four years, you will have plenty of time to worry about this later, just take a deep breath and put down your file system tools, this will all be OK.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Don't fix it. Reiser3 is in the mainline kernel. Why bother messing with your working (and apparently robust) system?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
ZFS isn't available on Linux. It is a great enterprise class file system, but for the type of application discussed here it is probably overkill in terms of management complexity, etc. Not that it would be bad or wrong to use, and you could benefit from some of the features of course, but it really shines in demanding environments. In any case unless you're running openSolaris it isn't an option.
Ext3 in my experience is just plain inferior to ReiserFS. Recovery and formatting are both slow as death. Like the OP I have yet to suffer any data loss on a ReiserFS since way back in the early days when it first came out. Ext3 seems pretty reliable as well, but the slow recovery times are annoying and once in a while it seems like a whole filesystem just plain becomes irretrievably corrupted. OTOH it does demand less CPU overhead. Rarely a BIG issue, but can be with HTPC type systems.
Overall though I don't think you have a lot of choice. XFS or JFS might be perfectly good solutions, not really had a need to mess with either of them myself so I can't comment. Obviously ReiserFS looks like it has about reached the end and that pretty much leaves Ext3 as the only man left standing in the ring at this point. Cheer up, it works well enough, you'll just have to live without the shrink functionality... ;).
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
I would stick with ext3 - it is really the only option that meets your needs (which is why I'm using it as well). Note that I'd avoid using LVM - there is some kind of bug in some versions of LVM that causes massive data loss in some very rare circumstances. I recently lost a few hundred GB of data on a RAID due to this issue. (Google for "access beyond end of device lvm".) Ran fsck to clean up some errors after a crash while in RAID recovery mode and suddenly I had massive data loss on an entirely different lvm logical volume - it was obvious that the fsck somehow crossed the logical volume boundaries which should not be possible.
In the end I ended up restoring critical data from backups (which did not include mythtv recordings), and watched what remained of my recordings (complete with 10 second patches of video jumping between shows). I had to completely wipe out everything on the raid and start over. I no longer run lvm - I used to swear by it but it will be a while before I go back to it. My few non-lvm partitions (root, boot) had no issues at all even though they were subject to the same treatment.
Most people are using Linux for HTPC applications, BSD is a whole other kettle of fish...
I'm not saying ZFS is HARD to admin, just that a basic ext3 fs is nothing at all to admin. If you know ZFS, it is no big deal. For your average garden variety user they will never take advantage of the ZFS features anyway, so they'd be better of just going with ext3. There is a lot better chance their recovery tools support it, etc.
So, I'll agree with you, if the user happens to be sophisticated and using BSD, then go for ZFS, why not?
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
No, it was awful in production use. Any disk failure on a RAID set, as can be expected to occur in any large environment, would lead to a confused ReiserFS whose own recovery tools would destroy it and which could no longer be backed up reliably. This has happened with no other Linux compatible filesyste I've ever seen: the others simply report a failed access, they do not lock when trying to read the ruined files.
ReiserFS was only suitable for high-speed, random access, restorable via other means filesystems such as NNTP servers and web proxies. For root partitions, boot partitions, and home directories, it was unstable and dangerous to use.