On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 11:57:19PM -0800, Thomas Duffy wrote:
> On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 16:19, Vernon Fort wrote:
> stability-wise, I would have to say that xfs and ext3 are probably on
> the same page (in Linux). of course, xfs has had a longer history in
> IRIX.
And ext2 has had quite a long history in Linux and that is mostly the
same system in ext3 with just some features added on.
> > I have used xfs over the past 3-4 months and it's noticeable faster then
> > reiserfs in some applications, GREAT SOFTWARE!!!!. My real question is I'm
> > and thinking of using the ext2 file system for / and /usr (primarily for
> > recovery reasons and it a standard and proven file system) and xfs for
> > everything else - OR - should I use xfs for everything. Any thoughts would
> > be greatly appreciated!
You could use ext3 as it can be mounted back as ext2 without any further
pain. Actually it can be treated as an ext2 that just has an extra file.
> we use XFS for everything on all our critical servers and workstations.
> it is rock solid and not an issue at all. It is running on our perforce
> source server which has a ton of data on it. I would not worry about
> putting it on your / or /usr. xfs has a proven set of tools that work
> extremely well for backup and recovery.
I agree aand I love XFS too. I had a wee problem a while ago because I
did update grub to use XFSbut forgot to replace stge1&2 *in /boot*. Next
reboot didn't find the XFS root. Well, an XFS grub floppy is easy to
make and you'll have an XFS kernel somewhere and recovery couldn't be
easier.
I got one system where an early version of XFS actually did manage to
get into unbootable stage (yes, root partition). I put it into another
box and xfs_repair made it perfectly functional automatically IIRC.
Replace drive, boot and run.
--
OS/2:
"We won't sell it to you because there's no demand, and we wish
people would stop asking"
pgpjwCR4NFTBH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|