Colin Watson posted this to the ubuntu-devel mailing list: Debian has removed reiserfs support from its kernel packages and its installer (http://bugs.debian.org/717517). I don't really want to keep maintaining it without Debian; for instance it would mean adding support for http://bugs.debian.org/696123 as an Ubuntu-specific patch once we have the underpinnings done. Does anyone feel desperately that we have to keep this or shall I just go ahead and drop it? Thanks, -- Colin Watson Any thoughts on this?
Forum posting guidelinesMember:Not Canonical TeamUbuntu membership via Forums contributions
I've never used it. I studied the various fs's for comparisons, but in the end I stuck with ext4.
NoSnap-popey AnotherNoSnap https://github.com/popey/unsnap/tree/main
ReiserFS was conceived as a replacement for ext2. It was faster in some circumstances but had issues with corruption. Time has moved on. It was good in its time but now irrelevant.
It was a good FS (OK, it is) but it doesn't have a future, company has folded, its creator is in prison for life, so better drop it and forget about it; it's about time
linux user #387628 | ubuntu user #4719 | ubuntuforums user #17209
Gave it a try on a test machine, but had problems with it. Have no reason to keep using it. My opinion is to drop it as there is no support for it.
I used it for a while and it did fold up on itself once. It was faster than ext2. Not sure if it is faster than ext4. Data recovery tools have a harder time with it. The files are still there, but it is more difficult to rebuild the tree. Without a maintainer or improvements, it's a dead-end file system. I have no problem with dropping it. If you are running a production server with ReiserFS, then now is the time to migrate.
------------------------------------- Oooh Shiny: PopularPages Unumquodque potest reparantur. Patientia sit virtus.
With the advent of BTRFS and it improving all the time, the speed at which even EXT4 is still running, ZFS, XFS plus the myriad of others, personally I don't see the point in "beating a dead donkey" as it were. If reiserFS was still in development maybe there could be an argument for it. I'm all for removing it as an option as to be fair we have very capable and more impressive filesystems to choose from. Plus if debian no longer is maintaining, it that for me settles it.
Last edited by ZoiaGuyver; September 13th, 2013 at 11:38 PM.
Originally Posted by davetv ReiserFS was conceived as a replacement for ext2. It was faster in some circumstances but had issues with corruption. Time has moved on. It was good in its time but now irrelevant. i Agree also, EXT4 & BTRFS are ok. (just my 2 cents)
I have never deviated from the EXT* FS, but if I did, BTRFS would be my choice and ReiserFS would of never been considered. RIP
It doesn't seem any different than dropping OSS audio or support for non-PAE CPU's. Ubuntu used to be a distro more accommodating to older machines and backwards compatibility. For better or worse, it's no longer that distro...
Ubuntu Forums Code of Conduct