Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Best Shrinkable ReiserFS Replacement?

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-in-case dept.

Data Storage 508

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.

cancel ×

508 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OJ FS (5, Funny)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889475)

The O. J. Simpson filesystem!

Re:OJ FS (-1, Redundant)

delete X (1290676) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889559)

first reply for first post reply

I'll be hard... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889481)

... to find a new killer filesystem, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'll be hard... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889617)

I would kill for it... oh, wait!

For a shrinkable version... (1, Funny)

Starlet Monroe (512664) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889629)

...how about Caylee Anthony?

Re:I'll be hard... (1)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889705)

Don't they have Linux in jail?
--
Finding My IP [ipfinding.com]

In Soviet Operating System development (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889745)

Linux jails [gentoo-wiki.com] YOU!

Re:I'll be hard... (3, Funny)

faragon (789704) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889773)

They have GNU/Jail, you insensitive and free clod!

Re:I'll be hard... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889775)

I have a simple and elegant solution to two problems that I perceive have arisen from the conviction of Mr Reiser, said problems being:

a) absence of a project manager for the ReiserFS project and
b) an overabundance of 'killer filesystem' jokes.

What I propose is this: the next person to make a 'killer filesystem' or similar joke will be horsewhipped in the town square and then assigned responsibility for ReiserFS for the rest of his (or her) life. Any developmental milestones which have been assigned but are not complete by the deadline will result in further horsewhipping.

I have forwarded this action plan to the relevant authorities and am currently awaiting approval. Please show your support by buying a T-shirt or coffee mug.

Thanks for your time.

Re:I'll be hard... (1)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890105)

Flawed solution:

the next person to make a 'killer filesystem' or similar joke will be horsewhipped ..

What about the many others that will continue to make the joke after him?

Re:I'll be hard... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890109)

As long as I'm provided food and clothing, sure, I'd love to take on the job of managing a killer filesystem.

Re:I'll be hard... (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889813)

You'll be hard... to what?

Re:I'll be hard... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24890085)

It fault, you intransigent clod!

gentlemen (2, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889507)

start your reiser jokes.

my 2 cents...ext3.

Re:gentlemen (5, Funny)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889673)

ls wife
ls -A wife
ls -A body
ls -A body
sudo ls -A body
Password:
Ok ok, /dev/hills/body

Some general thoughts (4, Informative)

TheMidnight (1055796) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889521)

I've heard good things about ZFS from Sun Microsystems, though I don't have much experience with it. Ext3 seems to have decent crash recovery though it requires fscks almost every time. JFS2 from IBM is the most solid filesystem I've ever seen, but I don't know if such a filesystem works with MythTV.

To expand on that (5, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889691)

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... ;).

ext3 with data journaling (4, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889789)

Performance may crawl to a standstill but ext3 with full journaling of data not just meta-data should make crash-recovery nearly bulletproof.

Another option is to reduce the number of crashes:
Make sure your software and hardware are stable and use a good, stable battery-backed power supply.

The latter is good advice for any system.

Re:Some general thoughts (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889753)

JFS2 from IBM is the most solid filesystem I've ever seen, but I don't know if such a filesystem works with MythTV.

JFS2 works perfectly with MythTV.

I use JFS exclusively for my MythTV store, because it's the hands-down winner for deletion of large files (something that happens frequently with a MythTV box.)

Note that JFS doesn't support shrinking, so it's not an option for the submitter.

FS migration a la Reiser (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889539)

However you handle your FS migration, special care must be taken to divide the task at hand into small manageable chunks. The migration must be quick and dirty, but with as little mess as possible. Most importantly, be honest with your customers -- they will decide your business' fate. Don't treat them like idiots just because they didn't design a FS.

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889725)

Why isn't this marked as funny??

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889795)

Because it isn't.

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889825)

Because its not?

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889861)

Probably because that whooshing sound has rendered me hard of hearing.

Seriously, anyone got the Simple English version ?

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889989)

Seriously, anyone got the Simple English version ?

It's a murder joke.

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24890057)

Seriously, anyone got the Simple English version ?

When you cut your wife into small bits, don't flame your own jury.

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890069)

Dunno, maybe because he goes on about "omg customers blah blah business" when this is obviously for the guy's home HTPC.

Re:FS migration a la Reiser (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889749)

The migration must be quick and dirty, but with as little mess as possible

You sounds just like my wife!

Wait, I don't have a wife. Nevermind.

Even worse, I really didn't consider the context before I started talking about wives. Oops.

" I can't foresee the future of ReiserFS" (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889541)

Neither could his wife. OH SNAP!

Difficult question (1)

JayAEU (33022) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889547)

There really aren't that many filesystems around that meet your criteria. The only one I'm aware of acutally is Ext3 and IIRC that only supports offline shrinking. Other alternatives would be VxFS, Ext4 and maybe BTRFS, but I'm not too sure about their kernel integration.

shrinkable? (5, Informative)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889565)

My fastest way of checking what operations can be supported on filesystems at the present is by checking what gparted can do. Of the filesystems it works with right now, only four (jfs, reiser4, ufs, xfs) can't be shrunk using gparted.

ext2/3 can be shrunk offline (4, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889823)

I'm not sure if gparted can do it yet, but you can shrink and grow ext2/3 partitions [howtoforge.com] at the command line using a combination of tools.

Re:ext2/3 can be shrunk offline (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890079)

gparted should be able to do it but you need to install those tools for gparted to actually use them.

Try Reiser's new filesystem (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889567)

I hear he is developing a new way to compress his logs. Something to do with packing pointers into the tail. I think it is shrinkable, but that entails the use of very cold water.

Re:Try Reiser's new filesystem (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889729)

I wish there was a -5 bad taste mod....

Re:Try Reiser's new filesystem (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889839)

What? Anal rape jokes are in 'bad taste' now? When did that change? Nobody tells me anything...

Re:Try Reiser's new filesystem (1)

Hillview (1113491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890099)

15 to life is a bit long for a development window though.

Killer Alternative? (-1, Redundant)

sstair (538045) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889589)

Has O.J. Simpson written an open source filesystem?

How about - (4, Funny)

cephalien (529516) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889605)

NTFS on Vista?

I hear your disk space shrinks like nobody's business.

Re:How about - (5, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889713)

Despite the parent trying to be funny, NTFS does support shrinking. I've used it to shrink a full disk partition down a bit to install a Linux one on the side.

(Now queue 'no room left for Windows on the drive' jokes)

Re:How about - (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889777)

How is the parent offtopic? Funny perhaps (at least I thought it was funny) but definitely ON topic of shrinkable filesystems.

Re:How about - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24890031)

"How is the parent offtopic?"

Maybe because part of the request was for OS compatible and non-proprietary? In short, most everything NTFS is not.

I can only speak for myself (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889611)

For my MythTV installation, I choose ext3 for the system partitions like / and /usr and xfs for my /video partition. My system partitions are on a RAID 1 while my /video partition is a 1TB RAID 10 LVM. ext3 is more than adequate for my purposes and it does a decent job of recovery. Earlier this year my server started crashing intermittently with no messages in the error logs. I finally traced it to a bad stick of RAM and ext3 recovered in most of the cases. In one case I had to repair mysql databases, but that was the only hiccup.

Re:I can only speak for myself (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889763)

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.

LVM + EXT3 (3, Interesting)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889613)

I would use LVM and EXT3.
You can use LVM to change the size of the partition, and then use resize2fs to shrink it to fit the LVM
Google around, you'll find some good docs
Found here:https://www.redhat.com/archives/nahant-list/2007-March/msg00004.html
fsck
resize2fs (resize to smaller then needed)
lvm (resize to the size needed)
resize2fs (grow to fill LVM vol.)

Well... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889631)

If I wasn't still waiting for Gentoo to compile, I would fix Reiser FS for you. But, you should be able to update it and support it yourself. The source is available, right?

NTFS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889637)

Or one of those windows file systems. Kicks linus's butthind to kingdomcome.

Why switch? (5, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889639)

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.

Re:Why switch? (3, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889797)

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.

There are two problems with this:

1: That's not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is someone discovers a critical flaw in the filesystem that suddenly puts your data at risk. Yes, I know, this isn't likely with filesystems, but it is at least theoretically possible. Which makes it the "worst case".

2: You're proposing a reactive method of systems administration. This might be fine for a hobbyist who doesn't care about his system(s), but for a production environment this is playing with fire. You know that support for ReiserFS will disappear (unless you know for a fact that another person/group has stepped up to provide support); why wait until the last possible second, when you'll only have more work to do, to migrate your systems to a new filesystem? Don't put off to tomorrow that which can be done today.

Re:Why switch? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889905)

2: You're proposing a reactive method of systems administration. This might be fine for a hobbyist who doesn't care about his system(s), but for a production environment this is playing with fire. You know that support for ReiserFS will disappear (unless you know for a fact that another person/group has stepped up to provide support); why wait until the last possible second, when you'll only have more work to do, to migrate your systems to a new filesystem? Don't put off to tomorrow that which can be done today.

Exactly. Start looking at alternatives right now. Put together a test environment to see how the new filesystem holds up to abuse. Schedule some downtime and start moving the data over with minimal disruption to your clients.

Then sit back and relax knowing that you won't be scrambling for a new filesystem at the last minute later on.

Re:Why switch? (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890011)

I do agree with your points but.
This guy was using ReiserFS on his MythTV box. He may or may not be using it on other Linux boxes but that was not clear.
Sounds to me like this is a hobbyist.

Re:Why switch? (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889981)

Yeah, I agree. ReiserFS does its job really well. There are some issues --- apart from not getting terribly good maintenance any more, there's an issue with hash collisions meaning that you can't put some combinations of files into a directory, which Debian can trigger occasionally --- but it's still a perfectly serviceable, production quality filesystem. I'd love for someone to adopt it and do maintenance.

Re:Why switch? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889995)

Bear in mind Intermezzo and CODA were merged with the baseline, and suffered bit-rot. The kernel module for dynamic device numbering also died inside the mainstream, despite fairly heavy usage by the distros. Although it improves the odds of survival, it's not a guarantee of it. It's not much of a guarantee of quality, either - Lustre absolutely beats the carp out of GFS2 and Oracle's cluster file system. (Oracle don't even use the filesystem they donated to Linux, far as they're concerned, it's abandonware.) This doesn't mean ignore what is in the kernel, that should always be the first place to look, but never assume that it's either safe or optimal.

Try SGI's XFS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889643)

I have been using SGI XFS for years and it has proven to be one of the best overall filesystems I've ever used.

It performs well under heavy load (used it on shared development machines); it handles large files well; plus it has been very reliable.

Re:Try SGI's XFS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889723)

He did. Did you RTFA?

Re:Try SGI's XFS! (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889835)

I've never had any problems with XFS. It's been rock solid on a lot of my machines with very heavy I/O. Regardless of this guys previous problem, I'd still recommend XFS as the best alternative.

Is Linux a hard requirement? (4, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889645)

If you can use something other than Linux, then ZFS is the winner. Take a look at the FreeBSD ZFS Quick Start [freebsd.org] , particularly the examples. That's possibly the coolest filesystem demo I've ever seen.

Re:Is Linux a hard requirement? (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889721)

That's a cool guide, ZFS looks pretty sweet.

Re:Is Linux a hard requirement? (2, Informative)

ge (12698) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889791)

You will need at least 8G of RAM. ZFS is an enterprise file system, which needs big hardware. So run 64-bit FreeBSD and get lots of memory.

Re:Is Linux a hard requirement? (3, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889927)

That's highly dependent on how many filesystems you have, and across how many drives. I got by just fine with AMD64/2GB on a 750GB SATA drive and maybe 20 filesystems.

Yes, ZFS FTW; (1)

toby (759) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890065)

But note that shrinking pools is not yet supported. It's almost the #1 wishlist item though, so it shouldn't be too long coming. [netbsd.se]

While ZFS can be RAM hungry, the 8GB suggested by another poster is probably exaggerated, depending on your workload. A light ZFS workload runs fine on a 2GB box (which is what I run it on). 64-bit architecture is recommended for best performance.

More info at the OpenSolaris ZFS Community [opensolaris.org] .

Ext3? (4, Informative)

Conception (212279) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889647)

Ext3 with LVM seems to be the popular way to go about this. Unless you really want an esoteric solution, from your requirements I don't see a reason to stray from the norm.

jfs2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889651)

jfs2 can be shrinked on AIX, not sure of its support on linux

Re:jfs2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24890087)

shrunk

As long as you're asking (3, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889653)

... I'm much more interested in a cache filesystem that will use local storage as a cache for network storage. Our corporate computing is horribly bottlenecked at the NAS while we have hundreds of gigabytes on every server and workstation sitting unused.

Re:As long as you're asking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889907)

I believe this fits your requirement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_File_System [wikipedia.org]

ReiserFS is the data-killer (5, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889681)

Ugh, ReiserFS and "good recovery when the file system is not closed properly"? It doesn't even have good recovery after a proper shutdown.

When other filesystems die, the damage is localised. When Reiser fucks up, all or nearly all of the tree is lost. Usually, you'll lose all files bigger than 4KB, although other damage modes are possible.

Reiser has a codebase of an insane size. A relatively small piece of code can be mostly bug-free, Reiser is simply too large, complex and ill-tested. I admit, I haven't given it a try recently but you can guess why I hate the very idea of approaching it without a ten-foot pole.

I've seen XFS screw a number of random files, ext3 mangled only files that were being written to, and my personal favourite is JFS. Even though I use JFS most of the time, the only screwup I witnessed was on a RAID without a write-intent bitmap.

Re:ReiserFS is the data-killer (4, Interesting)

DarkDust (239124) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890047)

Well, especially with filesystems we are in the your mileage may vary boat. We kicked ext3 out of our server room in favour of ReiserFS because we had constant problems with ext3 on several servers. Not data loss (we had with neither), but rebooting our servers (especially the development server) almost always required a fsck at boot and it always had to repair the FS. This meant several hours of down-time just because of a reboot (e.g. because we moved the server to a new UPS) which became unacceptable. No such problems with ReiserFS.

I think by now everyone has his horror stories to back either ext3's or ReiserFS's side so it's a kind of vi vs. emacs war by now, IMHO. I'm happily using ReiserFS and vi for almost a decade now ;-)

It's really a shame ZFS is not available on Linux (only via FUSE)... I am really impressed by its capabilities (have an OpenSolaris server).

If it ain't broke.... (5, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889683)

Don't fix it. Reiser3 is in the mainline kernel. Why bother messing with your working (and apparently robust) system?

I want a filesystem that supports large extents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889699)

I don't mean 4kb block sizes. I mean extents, configurable to say at least 4megs.

Stay Put (5, Informative)

m6ack (922653) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889733)

ReiserFS is still being used and maintained in-kernel. It's Stable, and it just works for you and for hundreds of thousands of others; so, what's the rush?

I'd wait for the next batch of next gen FS (BTRFS, Tux3) to show their stuff -- and perhaps take a look at getting involved. Daniel Phillips has recently sent out a call for help... Sounds like you have an itch -- go scratch it.

Re:Stay Put (3, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889955)

link [kerneltrap.org] for the lazy, and a description [kerneltrap.org] of the FS.

Fork it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889739)

ReiserFS is OSS, if the project leaders are taking it in a direction people don't like, then fork it.

UPS (1)

yamla (136560) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889741)

Regardless of whether or not the file system should be able to survive you pulling the plug, you may want to invest in a UPS. Even a low-end UPS should be fine, so long as it interfaces properly with Linux and gracefully shuts down your system as soon as it loses power.

As to file systems, I personally use XFS on my MythTV box. ext3 will grow and shrink but, last time I checked, had speed issues when it came to deleting large files. Also, when you do run a fsck, it's terribly terribly slow on larger file systems. ext4 has a number of significant improvements but is not yet stable.

Re:UPS (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889973)

I second this. Even if your files survive, every time the power is yanked, the power supply takes a hit during that split second where all the circuitry panics: "Oh noes! I need that power!". A good PSU will survive for a while, but eventually it will cross the threshold and go POOF!

Me, I think they should start building the UPS right into the power supply.

The advantage of an open source license (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889743)

Is that, even with the chief maintainer gone, not all is lost. Now, I don't know what the present status of support or development is, but if it's working for you, why stop using it? It's not like the software is imbued with evil now that its namesake is in jail. Plenty of people worked on ReiserFS-- Hans Reiser employed many programmers-- and presumably, those people will still be out there working on it in some capacity.

The name, of course, is an unpleasant reminder of Hans Reiser's disturbing actions, but good software speaks for itself, as you yourself have found.

Re:The advantage of an open source license (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890049)

Plenty of people worked on ReiserFS under the Namesys company, but that is now closed [cnet.com]

So there is no commercial support of the FS, only enthusast which is not that much of a problem unless they have decided to work on other things, possibly because of Reiser's actions.

easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889747)

FAT16

MythTV? (3, Informative)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889765)

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.

Okay, you need to consider a couple of things. First off, this is MythTV. Your concept of "large files" and the normal industry use of "large files" are entirely two different things. I really doubt you are going to exceed any limitations of a modern filesystem with porn, dvds, and television recordings.

Second, you aren't going to lose data from a power outage when it comes to archived data you are reading (divx file, for example) when the power goes out. But no file system using system memory for a cache is going to play well when abruptly having the power yanked while it's writing.

Third, just use ext3. It's one of the most used, reliable, and proven file systems to date. If it's not enough, you are better off using a UPS and software raid5 an array a few similar sized drives, with a ext3 file system.

Let's please filter further headlines where people are asking about what exotic filesystem they should be trying out for non-raid applications. PLEASE.

Re:MythTV? (4, Informative)

GrumpyOldMan (140072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890053)

He's concerned about "large files" because ext3 takes eons (10 to 20 seconds) to delete large (8GB/hr) files generated by recording HDTV. This used to be important on MythTV, because deletions were synchronous. So using ext2 in combination with HDTV on MythTV meant a 10 to 20 second "freeze" when manually deleting something, or missing 10-20 seconds of a new recording while an auto-expire deleted an old show.

In newer versions of MythTV, deletions are done by a separate thread, so there should be no concerns about using ext2/ext3.

FAT32 (4, Funny)

mrkitty (584915) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889783)

If it wasn't that great then why do most thumb drives use it? :)

Re:FAT32 (3, Informative)

raijinsetsu (1148625) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890029)

There's absolutely no disaster recovery on FAT32. It has no protections from bit errors, and has no native method of defining permissions.
It's used on thumb drives because A) it has very little meta data that needs to be written to the drive in addition to the data (meaning: you can unplug faster), and B) it works on every OS.

Why shrinkable? (2, Interesting)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889799)

Why the shrinkable requirement? Are you expecting your saved videos to take *less* space over time? I can assure you that I've never felt the need to downgrade the drives in my media server, in fact it's nearing time to upgrade it again as I finish ripping my DVDs.

But what the heck do I know, I just use the filesystem that my OS installs by default, like 99.999% of the world.

Re:Why shrinkable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889871)

POSIX quotas don't work per-directory, they work per-user or per-group. If you discover at some date that there's some condition that causes your system to go crazy and fill up /var/log in under an hour, you don't want it to bring down your whole system, you want it to fill up the space that can be safely allocated to log files.

It would be really nice if every filesystem was as flexible as ZFS, but since some people need per-directory quotas, or want to add a new filesystem with nosuid/noexec/whatever later, shrinking and adding a new FS is really the only viable option other than just leaving all of your space unused for no good reason.

Re:Why shrinkable? (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889987)

Couldn't you solve that same problem by A) not putting /var/log on the same file system as other things you consider more important in the first place, rather than when a problem occurs, and B) leaving yourself some headroom on the disk when you set it up, so if you want to allocate a dedicated a few GB for /var/log you can do so without shrinking other file systems?

Here's hoping (1)

telchine (719345) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889811)

I'm still holding out hope for it to be resurrected.

Give it some time (1)

LubosD (909058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889849)

As Reiser vows to work in the prison in order to provide for his children, I wouldn't discard the filesystem yet :-)

JFS seems to be a good alternative, but unfortunately it doesn't allow shrinking, at least not on Linux. If I were you, I'd give it some time, because there seem to be new interesting filesystems on the horizon (brtfs, ext4). However, if you really need shrinking and you need a new FS now, give ext4 a whirl. It's not a production-ready FS yet, but it's almost there.

Re:Give it some time (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889941)

As Reiser vows to work in the prison in order to provide for his children

That's big of him, but what makes you think they let you have a computer and internet access while you're in prison for murder?

ext3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889873)

EXT3 is your only option for an in kernel file system that can both be re-sized both up and down (resize2fs does the trick, parted will work too). It's a slower file system than the others because it journals both meta data and data. Who ever said you have to use fsck with ext3 doesn't have a clue you just need to edit the fstab to prevent fsck on errors, it will recover from the journal just fine.

XFS and JFS can only be grown (with xfs_growfs and mount -o remount,resize /mount/point respectively). Well at least the last time I checked.

Life does not end behind bars (1)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889899)

Petition the penitentiary to allow him to use a computer — and an Internet access — for very good behavior...

You need shrinkable on a MythTV box? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889903)

Really? Are you sure? You really need that, on a MythTV box? Really? See all these question marks?

Disclaimer: I know nothing about ReiserFS (1)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889913)

Is there a team that maintains ReiserFS, or was it strictly Hans' work? Whatever compelling features it had didn't diminish because Hans Reiser is a murderer. If people see continued use of it as some sort of implicit support of Reiser, maybe a name change is in order. Call it NinaFS or SharanovaFS (Nina's maiden name I think) or something along that line.

Reiserfs good recovery?!? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24889951)

Get a look at this (if nobody else alredy posted it):
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html

Solution for servers, and data storage (5, Interesting)

notany (528696) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889979)

Filesystem was so big issue in my work that we bite the bulled and tried first Open Solaris and then switched into Nexenta http://www.nexenta.org/ [nexenta.org] Nexenta is OpenSolaris kernel GNU/Debian/Ubutntu userland. What this gets to you is ZFS and RAID-Z and RAID-Z2. When you get used to the fact that your filesystems has end to end quarantee of data integrity by hashing (even cryptographic hashing if you want, you feel uncomfortable with any other filesystem. In home I still run Linux on my laptop, but I made my own NAS that ruons with Nexenta.

Just use EXT3 (4, Interesting)

jonnyj (1011131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24889997)

EXT3 works perfectly on my Myth box and is probably the best filesystem for use with an up to date installation. The reason it was previously not recommened with Myth is because it takes a long time to delete large files on EXT3, so if you delete a file whilst making a recording, you can get a drop-out. However, Myth backend now has an option for slow background deletion of large files; if you enable it, you won't have any problems. Given the amount of RAM on a typical modern media server, though, it's unlikely that a drop-out would occur - the system would just cache the recording ntil the hard drive became available.

I, too, have lost data with abrupt power loss on XFS. JFS doesn't auto-repair on startup with Ubuntu, so that's not a good option unless you want to manually run FSCK every time you have power outage. Any other filesystem isn't mainstream so is best avoided.

rename reiserfs? (3, Funny)

Hunterdvs (461524) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890001)

Why don't we just rename ReiserFS. It seems the problem everyone has with it is that Hans killed his wife, the technology is still fine. What about KillerFS?

CellFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24890037)

No sweat. CellFS is on the way!

Don't use EXT3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24890073)

Several of the comments above recommend EXT3. Don't do it for MythTV. A very important capability of the filesystem needed on a MythTV box is the capability of deleting large files quickly. EXT3 works miserably for this purpose. ReiserFS is better than EXT3, but XFS and JFS are far superior at large-file deletion speed. I use XFS on my MythTV box, although I used to use EXT3, and the improvement is startling.

You might consider using 2 partitions, one with XFS or JFS for your normal recordings, and one with EXT3 for archival storage of recordings you expect not to delete very often.

EXT4? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#24890103)

Its sure to be supported for a very long time and it'll almost certainly be stable before ReiserFS goes the way of the dinosaur.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?