Prev: Just my experience with FOSS - your mileage may vary.....
Next: RealVNC 4.1.2 does not start under Centos 5
From: Ivan Marsh on 12 Jun 2008 11:14
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:14:19 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:25:23 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and can't
>> seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.
>>
>> I have reiserfs-utils installed.
>>
>> Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it already
>> be supported by the CentOS kernel?
>>
>> Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>
>>
>> Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'
>
> Check the repositories for a reiserfs-aware kernel.

Yeah... I've been working on getting the CentOS-plus kernel loaded.

I've got it set up but I'm not sure if I have my Yum priorities set up
correctly to update the Plus kernel correctly.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

From: Ivan Marsh on 12 Jun 2008 13:32
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:25:28 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:08 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:14:19 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:25:23 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> I just changed a Fedora8 machine over to a CentOS 5.1 machine and
>>>> can't seem to get an existing reiserfs partition mounted.
>>>>
>>>> I have reiserfs-utils installed.
>>>>
>>>> Do I have to compile a kernel with reiserfs support or should it
>>>> already be supported by the CentOS kernel?
>>>>
>>>> Mount -t reiserfs <device> <mount point>
>>>>
>>>> Says: Unknown filesystem type 'reiserfs'
>>>
>>> Check the repositories for a reiserfs-aware kernel.
>>
>> Yeah... I've been working on getting the CentOS-plus kernel loaded.
>>
>> I've got it set up but I'm not sure if I have my Yum priorities set up
>> correctly to update the Plus kernel correctly.
>
> Can't help with Yum. I used it when I messed around with either Deb or
> Suse or Mandrake years ago but don't remember much about it.
>
> Looks like you'll get it worked out. It's a learning experience.
>
> Was there a reason you chose reiser over say ext3 when you were using
> F8?

I have a 1T, four drive, software RAID5 that's been corrupted more than
once when I was running ext3 on it. Since I've moved to ReiserFS I haven't
had any corruption despite several massive rebuilds.

ReiserFS seems to have more overhead but appears to be much more robust
than ext3.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

From: J.O. Aho on 12 Jun 2008 13:55
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:25:28 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

>> Was there a reason you chose reiser over say ext3 when you were using
>> F8?
>
> I have a 1T, four drive, software RAID5 that's been corrupted more than
> once when I was running ext3 on it. Since I've moved to ReiserFS I haven't
> had any corruption despite several massive rebuilds.
>
> ReiserFS seems to have more overhead but appears to be much more robust
> than ext3.

In most cases ReiserFS is much faster than ext3 and not too far behind
jfs and xfs.

Due the low quality on HP laptops, I have tried a number of different
file systems, jfs and xfs did work so so, Reiser4 (rc1) was at least at
the time too slow, ext3 did almost worse than Reiser4, only ReiserFS did
recover without trouble and on a short time from the troubles caused by
the hardware caused crashes.

--

//Aho
From: Ivan Marsh on 12 Jun 2008 14:39
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:55:49 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:25:28 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>>> Was there a reason you chose reiser over say ext3 when you were using
>>>> F8?
>>>
>>> I have a 1T, four drive, software RAID5 that's been corrupted more
>>> than once when I was running ext3 on it. Since I've moved to ReiserFS
>>> I haven't had any corruption despite several massive rebuilds.
>>>
>>> ReiserFS seems to have more overhead but appears to be much more
>>> robust than ext3.
>>
>> In most cases ReiserFS is much faster than ext3 and not too far behind
>> jfs and xfs.
>>
>> Due the low quality on HP laptops, I have tried a number of different
>> file systems, jfs and xfs did work so so, Reiser4 (rc1) was at least at
>> the time too slow, ext3 did almost worse than Reiser4, only ReiserFS
>> did recover without trouble and on a short time from the troubles
>> caused by the hardware caused crashes.
>
> Well I'll agree that ext3 is a little slow but I would have no fear
> pulling the plug on this pc and ruining the ext3 slice. It's happened
> several times in the past during power fluctuations until I went out and
> purchased a UPS for this pc and I've never had damage on a large scale.

Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

From: Ivan Marsh on 13 Jun 2008 10:39
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:28:35 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:29 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:39 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:55:49 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:25:28 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Was there a reason you chose reiser over say ext3 when you were
>>>>>> using F8?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a 1T, four drive, software RAID5 that's been corrupted more
>>>>> than once when I was running ext3 on it. Since I've moved to
>>>>> ReiserFS I haven't had any corruption despite several massive
>>>>> rebuilds.
>>>>>
>>>>> ReiserFS seems to have more overhead but appears to be much more
>>>>> robust than ext3.
>>>>
>>>> In most cases ReiserFS is much faster than ext3 and not too far
>>>> behind jfs and xfs.
>>>>
>>>> Due the low quality on HP laptops, I have tried a number of different
>>>> file systems, jfs and xfs did work so so, Reiser4 (rc1) was at least
>>>> at the time too slow, ext3 did almost worse than Reiser4, only
>>>> ReiserFS did recover without trouble and on a short time from the
>>>> troubles caused by the hardware caused crashes.
>>>
>>> Well I'll agree that ext3 is a little slow but I would have no fear
>>> pulling the plug on this pc and ruining the ext3 slice. It's happened
>>> several times in the past during power fluctuations until I went out
>>> and purchased a UPS for this pc and I've never had damage on a large
>>> scale.
>>
>> Was that a drive that multiple people write to at the same time?
>
> No but there wasn't any mention of multiple users writing simultaneously
> to the drive on J.O. Aho's crashing HP laptop.

Just wondering if it was the situation or the hardware that was causing
the corruption in my case.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Just my experience with FOSS - your mileage may vary.....
Next: RealVNC 4.1.2 does not start under Centos 5