[ILUG] NTFS is better than ext3?

[Liam Bedford]

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 14:59, Nick Murtagh wrote:
> Liam Bedford wrote:
> > no, it's a free feature.. just turn your machine off a couple of times
> > and you should get some corrupt data out of reiser. Out of the people I
> > know who were running, the majority of them have lost data (including
> > me). At the very least, turn off the tail optimization (mount option
> > notail).
> 
> This has happened to me too. Reiserfs v3 journals metadata only. If you
> expect your data to survive unexpected poweroffs you're in trouble.
> It's hardly a secret. If you need full journalling, use ext3 + 
> data=journal. Even then, if you're using IDE disks, there's still a 
> chance data won't get written to disk (make sure write caching is turned 
> off). If you want to go further, you'll need something with battery 
> backed cache (like a decent SCSI RAID card). It's a question of how much 
> time / effort / money you're willing to put in.
> 
the problem was with tail optimzation, because it puts data from other
files into the end of other files.

then when my machine crashed, data from some other file ended up in my
gnome login script. it's a known feature, and one I don't like.

> Even with a totally trashed reiserfs I was able to recover most of the
> data. I ended up with loads of files in lost+found, but the important
> stuff survived with filenames intact.
> 
Other people have had their own problems with reiserfs, but the general
part is that I will never use reiserfs again. I'd be more likely to use
the BeOS FS.

L.
> -- 
> Liam Bedford <lbedford at lbedford.org>