On Mon, 2006-07-31 18:44:33 +0200, Rudy Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-07-31 17:59:58 +0200, Adrian Ulrich > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A colleague of mine happened to create a ~300gb filesystem and started > > > to migrate Mailboxes (Maildir-style format = many small files (1-3kb)) > > > to the new LUN. At about 70% the filesystem ran out of inodes; Not a > > > > So preparation work wasn't done. > > Of course you are right. Preparation work was not fully done. And using > ext1 would also have been possible. I suspect you are still using ext1, > cause with proper preparation it is perfectly usable. Oh, and before people start laughing at me, here are some personal or friend's experiences with different filesystems: * reiser3: A HDD containing a reiser3 filesystem was tried to be booted on a machine that fucked up DMA writes. Fortunately, it crashed really soon (right after going for read-write.) After rebooting the HDD on a sane PeeCee, it refused to boot. Starting off some rescue system showed an _empty_ root filesystem. * A friend's XFS data partition (portable USB/FireWire HDD) once crashed due to being hot-unplugged off the USB. The in-kernel XFS driver refused to mount that thing again, and the tools also refused to fix any errors. (Don't ask, no details at my hands...) * JFS just always worked for me. Though I've never ever had a broken HDD where it (or it's tools) could have shown how well-done they were, so from a crash-recovery point of view, it's untested. * Being a regular ext3 user, I had lots of broken HDDs containing ext3 filesystems. For every single case, it has been easy fixing the filesystem after cloning. Just _once_, fsck wasn't able to fix something, so I did it manually with some disk editor. This worked well because the on-disk data structures are actually as simple as they are. ext3 always worked well for me, so why should I abandon it? MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [email protected] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: If it doesn't work, force it. the second : If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Łukasz Mierzwa <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Dan Oglesby <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- References:
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Mike Benoit <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: "Horst H. von Brand" <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Rudy Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUG] sched: big numa dynamic sched domain memory corruption
- Next by Date: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Previous by thread: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Next by thread: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Index(es):