All,

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but here's a little back-story first. I used Ubuntu with EXT4 for a while, probably 2-3 months, and then I noticed my data was becoming corrupt, ISO files I had that I had just used, wouldn't work, some music files I had wouldn't play in any player, not even VLC, etc. Well, come to find out a lot of people have had corruption with EXT4 and their files. Personally, I like my data and not having to reformat.

So I did some research and wanted to try Reiser4 - yes yes I know who Reiser is and what he did, it's not the File System's fault, it's his - no where is it in pretty much any kernel except Gentoo has a Reiser4 Live CD, I may try that later on. So I searched for File Systems and Benchmarks and finally found the best one for me where I do VMs, XFS.

Ok now for the interesting stuff - I was talking to my friend and he's going to redo his slack server and he uses ext3 and reiserfs - he was considering going to EXT4, but after hearing all the problems I've had he decided against - so we start looking at various other distros and find they've mainly switched to EXT4 as the default.
Why? - Even RHEL6 Server is default EXT4. I don't understand why though, if data can easily become corrupt, why use EXT4?

The other thing I've found with EXT4 and BTRFS (I tried BTRFS, way not ready for prime time) and others, is that large data operations make it to where your computer isn't usable until those operations are done somtimes - I did tests with XFS last night and that was not true, XFS I was able to send email, chat on pidgin, use chromium, with brief and minor pauses, but not like before where it was like 2-3 min. wait for pauses.

Overall how can they justify using a file system that does have file corruption happen easily? - Maybe it's just semantics or just me. Can someone give some insight?
Also if you have any information on when Reiser4 will be merged into the kernel or even available on Ubuntu WITHOUT having to compile the kernel, that would be great.

Thanks!