Re: ReiserFS / 2.4.6 / Data Corruption

From: Joshua Schmidlkofer (
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 10:26:07 EST

On Friday 27 July 2001 09:06 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Don't use RedHat with ReiserFS, they screw things up so many ways.....
> > For instance, they compile it with the wrong options set, their boot
> > scripts are wrong, they just shovel software onto the CD.
> Sorry Hans you can rant all you like but you know you are wrong on most
> of that. RH did weeks of stress testing on multiple systems up to 8Gb 8 way
> and didn't ship until we stopped seeing corruption problems with the mm/fs
> code.
> That test suite caught bugs in kernel revisions other vendors shipped
> blindly to their customers without fixing.
> That is hardly shovelling software onto the CD.
> > Actually, I am curious as to exactly how they manage to make ReiserFS
> > boot longer than ext2. Do they run fsck or what?
> No. The only thing I can think of that might slow it is that we build with
> the reiserfs paranoia/sanity checks on. Thats because at the time 7.1 was
> done the kernel list was awash with reiserfs bug reports and Chris Mason
> tail recursion bug patch of the week.
> That might be something to check to get a fair comparison

   I feel that things are actually progressing above my level of perception
here, however, I would like to mention that since my Redhat 4.x days i have
feared vendor kernels, and I never use them, for better or worse.

    Also, maybe I screwed my own system - I don't think so, but maybe. I
prefer to stick with Linus's kernels, and sometimes, depending on the
changlog -ac kernels. As far as the kernel & init scirpts are concerned, I
axed any fsck'ing entries for reiserfs. [I assume that they were
unnessecary.] I used kgcc [w/Rh7.1] to compile kernels, until recently. And
I stayed current with the lkml, and the namesys page watching for obvious
updates that I needed.

    The slowness [seemed] actually [to be] the process of starting & stopping
daemons. Almost like there was some sort of stigma about reading shell
scripts. All the binaries executed with appropriate haste.

   As far as shoveling code. Sometimes the options used to compile packages
leaves me with a large bit of wonder. Strange and seemingly heinous changes
to the various utilities, etc. But, I have never had a cause to fault them
based on this. [Except that I have never found the magic that causes all the
SRPMS to be [re]buildable.]

  So to sort it, I don't feel that being a moron caused to boot slow - unless
there is some wierd filehandling problem in bash2, or something that causes
severe slow-down when sourcing shell scripts. ???? However, Hans, I do
beleive you about Suse, and if I wasn't a cheap bastard I would probably buy
a copy.

thanks for all the response, and I am sorry if this does not belong here.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:00:33 EST