which FS and LVM for production quality HA

Alan Robertson alanr at unix.sh
Wed Mar 6 08:04:18 MST 2002


Jan Kasprzak wrote:

> Harald Milz wrote:
> : - ReiserFS vs. IBM JFS vs XFS (vs. ext3 but this seems not to provide
> :   production quality - or does it?)
> 
> <FLAME MODE=on>
> ext3 is definitely better production quality than reiserfs, especially
> when you compare reiserfsck with e2fsck (which you do want to run
> when physical media error occurs). I heart that ext3 developers
> routinely test this FS on the simulated device with bad blocks.
> OTOH, I had very sad experience with reiserfsck segfaulting on the
> filesystem with bad blocks. Reiserfs can be faster and better
> for lots of small files, but production quality is better for ext3.
> </FLAME>


Stephen certainly is an excellent developer and thorough tester.  E2fsck is 
a long-standing and thorougly tested tool.

I have had problems with ReiserFS on machines that had memory problems. This 
is similar to disk problems, but even more common than disk errors on cheap 
PCs ;-).  Reiserfsck was unable to fix the resulting corruption.  If your 
disk controller starts corrupting blocks, then all bets are off for *any* 
filesystem.  Better have good backups ;-)

I don't think I'd have any qualms about ReiserFS corrupting the data itself. 
  So, if you decide to use it, make sure you're using SCSI or FC or RAID 
disks (which manage errors), and ECC RAM.

These are all perfectly reasonable expectations for a mission critical 
application like SAP.

	-- Alan Robertson
	   alanr at unix.sh




More information about the Linux-HA mailing list