[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS corruption!

To: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS corruption!
From: Libor Vanek <libor@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:57:05 +0200
Cc: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <3D1CA432.9030904@conet.cz> <1025304829.6674.13.camel@UberGeek>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611

I'd recommend Reiser before EXT3. Reiser, I've found, is much quicker at
most things than EXT3, unless you want to some benefits of journaling.

As the speed is not the problem (this is fileserver ONLY (no database etc.) and 100 
Mbit/s is here the limit) I prefer ext3 because I still don't trust Reiser a lot (there 
still some "small" bugfixes...).

But what I wanted to say - do you have any numbers? Some Reiser/ext2/ext3/XFS 
comparison? Or it's just subjective meaning?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>