ext3 Bug in 2.4.20

[kwall@kurtwerks.com]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:32:42AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> > > Net Llama! wrote:
> > > > Another great reason to be using XFS.  ext3 is starting to look more &
> > > > more like a toy FS.
> >
> > XFS had its share of issues in its infancy. you're really not being fair by
> > comparing a relativly "new" fs with a relativly "old" one
> 
> I belive that ReiserFS is 'younger' than ext3, yet it isn't plagued by the
> number of flaws that ext3 has as of late.  And the age of the fs shouldn't
> matter.  ext3 is being put out as aa stable enterprise ready solution.
> There's no way that it classifies as such with such fundamental problems.

Hmm. I have zero problems with ext3 up to now. In fact, I've had zero
problems with it at all. Please pay special attention to your "as of
late" qualification. The problem occurred because of a bug introduced
extremely late in the 2.4.20-preN series. I hardly think it equitable
to judge a filesystem's design somehow defective because a change in 
its implementation exposed a developer thinko, not a design flaw. 

Now, if Red Hat is pushing ext3 as an "enterprise ready solution," they
should know better than to believe their own marketing material. ;-)
XFS or JFS (or AFS) are far better and more suitable for The Enterprise
(c). 

ReiserFS had its share of major issues early on, as you yourself have
pointed out on this very list. I think the age of a filesystem is 
quite relevant. XFS has been pounded on for quite some time, giving
everyone the chance to expose bugs and solve them.

Kurt
-- 
Laetrile is the pits