On Saturday 11 September 2004 09:39 am, Robin "Roblimo" Miller wrote:
> >Typically. I've found both Ext3 and ReiserFS are very conservative and
> >respected in this regard. Unfortunately, because the internal structure
> >of ReiserFS changes by design, and I have caught at least one
> >distributor *COUGH*Mandrake*COUGH* not bothering to make sure the kernel
> >and user-space recovery tools match, I don't trust ReiserFS. If
> >ReiserFS drops out and requires an off-line repair, I immediately back
> >it up "raw" (dd) _before_ attempting to run those tools. This is in
> >addition to researching the _exact_ ReiserFS version in the kernel and
> >verify the user-space tools are 100% compatible.
>
> One note re Reiser vs. EXT3: According to my company's sysadmins, if a
> ReiserFS partition suffers a physical hard drive failure, it is
> essentially unrecoverable, while you can recover some or most data from
> an EXT3 partition that has bad blocks.
> - Robin
Robin if something happened to my client information harddrive which is
ReiserFS the first thing I would not be doing is trying to recover it my
self. I will blow the 1k-5k on Drivesavers If they can recover the data
from laptop hd that was flatten by a semi they will recover what ever i need
off of that. While 100% percent recovery is not promised they have there
recovery average in the high 90s
but that is just me....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:37:34 EDT