Robin "Roblimo" Miller wrote:
>> Typically. I've found both Ext3 and ReiserFS are very conservative and
>> respected in this regard. Unfortunately, because the internal structure
>> of ReiserFS changes by design, and I have caught at least one
>> distributor *COUGH*Mandrake*COUGH* not bothering to make sure the kernel
>> and user-space recovery tools match, I don't trust ReiserFS. If
>> ReiserFS drops out and requires an off-line repair, I immediately back
>> it up "raw" (dd) _before_ attempting to run those tools. This is in
>> addition to researching the _exact_ ReiserFS version in the kernel and
>> verify the user-space tools are 100% compatible.
>>
>
> One note re Reiser vs. EXT3: According to my company's sysadmins, if a
> ReiserFS partition suffers a physical hard drive failure, it is
> essentially unrecoverable, while you can recover some or most data
> from an EXT3 partition that has bad blocks.
>
> - Robin
Absolutely. Reiserfsck is a joke. I've lost far too much data to
Reiserfs due to this to consider it trustworthy.
Like ext3, xfs_repair is very good at recovering corrupt filesystems,
and generally much faster in operation.
- Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:23:34 EDT