Talk:ReiserFS

message: As I had explained in the Reiser4 talk page, I also feel this page is very scant. Although ReiserFS is less advanced than Reiser4, it has many of the same complex principles (and great advantages) over ext2 and FAT32, but this article only skims over them. Therefore, if no one objects, I'll add stub status to this article. As I said, even the rather straight-forward FAT32 filesystem, which has severe disadvanatages to reiserfs, is far more detailed than this article. --Natalinasmpf 04:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. --Fredrik Orderud 23:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The article also seems to be generously larded with FUD. I have been using ReiserFS on all my machines for more than 5 years and have never had anything go wrong. Recovering data fom ReiserFS partitions of failed drives posed no filesystem specific problems. Had ext3 been stable before Reiser I probably would never have started running Reiser, but I have never had any reason NOT to continue to run Reiser.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubbing 

message: The majority of "Disadvantages" are quite obsolete, or simply nonissues.
:"ReiserFS in versions of the Linux kernel before 2.4.10 is considered unstable by Namesys and is not recommended for production use, especially in conjunction with NFS."
Kernel 2.4.10 was released in September of 2001. At this time, there have been 21 updates to the 2.4 series since then. This issue is obsolete.
:"Tail packing initially broke many bootloaders, which assumed file contents to be perfectly block-aligned. GRUB and LILO, two popular Linux bootloaders, have since gained support for reading tail-packed files. Tail-packing also imposed a significant performance penalty (because reads and writes for normally-contiguous files would have to seek to get to a tail packed elsewhere); Namesys recommends disabling the feature for performance-critical applications."
This states by itself that the problem is both obsolete and a nonissue; the bootloaders now have support for tail packing, and there has always been a way to turn it off.
:"ReiserFS had no bad block handling prior to release 3.6.12."
Version 3.6.12 of ReiserFS was released in August of 2000. You'd have much difficulty finding somebody who uses it. This issue is obsolete.
:"Converting a legacy ext2 filesystem to ReiserFS is also non-trivial and commonly requires a full dump and restore. ext3, in contrast, allows an in-place conversion."
I'd like to attack the use of the word 'legacy'. Making ext2 seem standard is misleading, because use of it is becoming rare as it is difficult to justify its use over the use of ext3. Also, ext2 and ext3 and practically the same thing; the only difference that I'm aware of is that ext3 is journalled. The fact that reiserfs can't convert from an entirely different filesystem is a nonissue; there isn't a filesystem out there that can.
To support my point: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?postid=1177376
Obviously a poll like this won't boast 100% reality, but it gives you an idea. --Laitment 20:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the "disadvantages" section should be renamed to something that better describes the contents, eg, "Problems" or "Issues"? Or should it be split into two, as in problems with (1)earlier and (2)current versions? Ideas? -- intgr 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the disadvantage section? 

message: One could argue that the wording may give an impression that those distros not listed may not support reiserfs by default or during install. Debian and Gentoo (and probably most of the up-to-date distros) definitely can format and install onto ReiserFS, and my experiences tells me many Gentoo installs meant for home uses tend to use ReiserFS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calyth (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 August 2005
:Debian can not create ReiserFS-filesystems during install. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.228.253 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 February 2006
::Really? Surprises me since Ubuntu, which is based on Debian, can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.2.112 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 April 2006
::wrong. reiserfilesystem installers for debian existet at least since kernel 2.4.1.(that was 2001).  nowadays debian uses initrd and you can allways use raiserfs with initrd. in the past debian didn't by default and installers that had reiserfs built as module didn't work as the modules themselves stored on that filsesystem - but as stated other installer had them built into the kernel.  never the less, raiserfs was always considered dangerous... 
:::Debian 6.0 installer doesn't support reiserfs by default. (You can do it by manually enabling installer plugin)
Doesn't Slackware use ext3 as it's default FS? Anyone has proof that Slackware uses ReiserFS as default?
I know that it supports ext2, ext3 and reiser3 though, as shown by Comparison_of_Linux_distributions 86.139.202.10 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReiserFS as default fs for Linux distros... 

message: openSUSE (perhaps SUSE Linux too?) is probably dropping ReiserFS as its default file system.  --Spug 22:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked mail seems to be just a proposal, this isn't time to even discuss it on WP. Gronky 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was was a proposal it became fact. The default filesystem in openSUSE 10.2 is ext3 (but you still have the choice to use reiserfs). 81.96.206.228 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the author of the proposal, the link between Hans Reiser's arrest and the proposed change to the openSUSE default file system is entirely misleading. As a point of fact, I actually found out about Hans's arrest several hours after I sent the email, and the topic itself had been under discussion internally for a while before. Also, the default only applies to openSUSE, not SUSE Linux Enterprise as noted in the article. JeffMahoney 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  openSUSE talking about dropping Reiser 

message: The table says the maximum filename length is "4032 bytes/255 characters"
This doesn't make any sense; 255 characters would be 255 bytes, or 510 if using Unicode.  Which is correct?  Or does it mean bits -- but that would be 4080? 134.53.26.79 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that's dubious. -- intgr 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 255 bytes is incorrect here - it's actually blocksize - 64 bytes, which is normally 4032 bytes -- SaguratuS 08:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The disk format supports blocksize - 64 bytes, but the Linux VFS imposes a 255 character limit on path components. -- JeffMahoney 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max filename length 

message: There seems to be a significant group of people who feel that Reiser's status as a convicted murderer is pertinent to the article. Another body seems to feel that this is interesting, but completely irrelevant. Should it be included, or should it only be discussed if it is shown to have affected adoption of the FS. Your thoughts?
207.164.21.130 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The right thing to do here is to not mention it as if the conviction predated all the Reiser FSs, nor to mention it in the lead; but only mention it if it affects the filesystem. As ReiserFS (the first one) was completed long before Nina disapeared, and IIRC is considered in maintenance, his murder conviction has little relevance. Now, I know I've seen some RS articles speculating about how the murder conviction impacts Reiser4's development, and that article should definitely include a section on 'Future Development' or something. That article is not this article, however. --Gwern  (contribs) 03:41 3 May 2008 (GMT)
While the development of ReiserFS is irrelevant to the fact that its creator is a convicted murderer, given the sensational and despicable nature of the crime, I believe associating the crime to the creator is relevant.  There is a moral obligation to any action we take, and alerting potential users of Hans Reiser's crime allows them to make an informed decision.
There is also a practical side to mentioning Reiser's crime: you do not want to describe what a wonderful product ReiserFS is without realizing its creator killed his wife. Swfong (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the preceding argument (previous 2 paragraphs).  In addition to this, the article in its current state makes a passing reference to a 'murder charge' without going any further, which may give the impression that that's all that came of it.  I think that is misleading; while we do not need every fine detail about the murder case, if we are going to mention the murder at all we should at least admit that he is, in fact, a convicted murderer and perhaps link off to the main Hans Reiser article for more information. mmj (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder conviction 

message: In the 'external links' section there is a link to convertfs. I suggest this link to be removed. convertfs is completely unrelated to the article and the ReiserFS filesystem. It's a proof of concept of a great idea that allows you to convert any filesystem to any other filesystem in place (and resizing it while you're at it). However the implementation is so bug ridden that you're not likely to see your data again soon. It's unmaintained since 2002 (except for a minor fix 2005 contributed by someone else) and never got past its proof-of-concept stage. Because it's buggy and unmaintained, most Linux distros have kicked it out of their repositories by now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.71.238 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop linking to convertfs 

message: On the bottom of the page, it says: "Namesys web site is now offline but try a cached version of the Reiser4 description (without figures)." The Google cache is gone, so I suggest a link to that page at Archive.org instead. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Reiser4 description 

message: I can only view the source, which seems to indicate this article is protected. Why isn't a lock image being shown automatically in the top right corner? (I mean one of these.) --82.171.70.54 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on ReiserFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614084322/http://www.namesys.com/X0reiserfs.html to http://namesys.com/X0reiserfs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705190506/http://www.namesys.com/faq.html to http://namesys.com/faq.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024001500/http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html to http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_256204954.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024001500/http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html to http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210042704/http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html to http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050509002339/http://p-nand-q.com/download/rfstool/reiserfs_docs.html to http://p-nand-q.com/download/rfstool/reiserfs_docs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114053341/http://p-nand-q.com/e/reiserfs.html to http://p-nand-q.com/e/reiserfs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111062641/http://www.crossmeta.org/redmine to http://www.crossmeta.org/redmine
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified