[plug] What does public opion feel about Riser FS?

[indy at THE-TECH.MIT.EDU]

Well, not to denigrate Trent's experience, but I think there is
an important general point here. Anecdotal evidence is sort
of shaky. 

My filesystem experience in order from least catastrophes to most:

MIT Athena AFS (0 catastrophes)

SGI XFS (on SGI) (0 catastrophes)

MS NTFS (1 catastrophe)

ReiserFS (1 catastrophe)

HFS+ (Mac OS8-9) (2 catastrophes)

ext3 (2 catastrophes)

ext2 (3 catastrophes) 

FAT16/32 (DOS/Win9x) (3 catastrophes)


Notes: 
It's only natural the Athena AFS came tops, as it was a distributed
"enterprise class" system.

HFS+ was actually stressed more than any of the other FS's in terms
of large files used intensely over a couple of years, so 2 failures
is perhaps a better result than it looks.

Before you flame me, I know this is anecdotal, that's my point.
I wouldn't use this list to choose my FS (I use Reiser atm on Linux)

Indy.


On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 07:05:12PM +0800, Derek Fountain wrote:
> > I lost my /home filesystem to its stupdi fsck utility which is supposed to
> > *fix* things, not erase half the data.
> 
> Well, actually, fsck is supposed to get the file system back to a sane state 
> as best it can. If the only way it could do that was by erasing half the data 
> (in order to save the other half) perhaps it just did its best?
> 
> What were the circumstances? Do you have reason to believe that with a 
> different filesystem your data could have been rescued?
> 
> -- 
> "...our desktop is falling behind stability-wise and feature wise to KDE 
> ...when I went to Mexico in December to the facility where we launched gnome, 
> they had all switched to KDE3." - Miguel de Icaza, March 2003

-- 
Indranath Neogy
<indy at the-tech.mit.edu>