[Nottingham] LVM and load balancing and ReiserFS

[Duncan John Fyfe]

On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 22:29 -0700, Charles Samuels wrote:
> Duncan John Fyfe wrote, on Friday 2007 October 26:
> > I wouldn't use Reiserfs but that is because it has problems which can
> > ruin (certain) data.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think it's bad form to fud ReiserFS. 

Asking for clarification is one thing, making possibly slanderous
accusations against someone is quite another.

> Anecdotes are not proof. Furthermore, 

The problems of reiserfs are well discussed on a number of mailing lists
(lkml is a good place to start) and quite well summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS

I suggest you do your own reading.

> all filesystems have problems which can ruin certain data.

Kindly point out where I suggested extN or XFS (or any filesystem for
that matter) was perfect.

First you say I'm spreading fud by stating I wouldn't use reiserfs
because it has well documented problems , now you are saying all
filesystems have problems.  Make your mind up does Reiserfs have
problems or not ?   Can they be raised without you making baseless
accusations of fud spreading ? 

To paraphrse what I wrote:
Reiserfs has issues which make me unhappy using it.  

Kindly explain where the fud is in that ?
You may wish to live in a dreamy "everything is linux and perfect"
world.  I live in a world where things go pear-shaped and I'm bloody
glad when someone helps me avoid a fubar or two.  Given the little
information we have from Martin about what he is trying to do it is a
bit difficult to be more specific than "watch your step with that one".

> Not to start a filesystem holy war, I just feel that ReiserFS has been given 
> undeserved treatment.
> 

Hardly a justification for making crass accusations of fud spreading.

Have fun,
Duncan
> Charles
> 
> p.s. I prefer vim over emacs
> _______________________________________________
> Nottingham mailing list
> Nottingham at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham