Last time I used it, about 6 months ago, I had problems with the box crashing with a kernel panic in the reiserfs module every couple of days. This was on a high volume mail server. I doubt I will ever use it again. Even though this problem may be fixed, there are much less options for filesystem recovery compared to ext3. Jay On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 09:17 AM, Bob Tanner wrote: > Quoting Thomas T. Veldhouse (veldy at veldy.net): >> Can anybody here say whether reiserfs has stabalized enough in the 2.4 >> kernel to safely use on a server (low load) versus using ext3 or >> ext2? I >> have seen a similar question being batted around other lists, but I >> have not >> heard a whole lot of real world experience, and this list probably has >> members with more of that than most. > > One of the biggest complaints for reiserfs is that none of the > repair/recovery > tools we use has reiserfs built-in by default. Tom's R/B, BBC, RH > recovery all > need to be tweaked to get them to support resiserfs (please correct me > if I'm > wrong). > > This is why we have stuck to ext3. > > -- > Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 > http://www.tcwug.org, Minnesota, Wireless | Coding isn't a crime. > Fingerprint: 02E0 2734 A1A1 DBA1 0E15 623D 0036 7327 93D9 7DA3 > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list