| To: | Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS and RAID5 |
| From: | Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:28:09 -0400 |
| Cc: | Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4.3.2.7.2.20010618152002.037ca3d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from knuffie@xxxxxxxxx on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:21:12PM +0200 |
| References: | <200106180555.FAA00389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4.3.2.7.2.20010618070434.02d268e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200106180555.FAA00389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010618085624.A3739@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4.3.2.7.2.20010618152002.037ca3d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:21:12PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote: > >(Not that those would be _better_ choices, but XFS is hardly "the only > >valid choice" :) > > Better is arguable and a personal preference. I agree completely, and in the same situation I'd go with XFS, too. However, it seems that ext2 still has a reputation for not being able to handle large files, which is no longer the case. -ed |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: kernel panic with Rawhide RPM, Steve Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: gcc-2.95.3 lockups, Luc Lalonde |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS and RAID5, Seth Mos |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS and RAID5, Robin Humble |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |