| 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@xxxxxxxx> <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? Libor |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS corruption!, Austin Gonyou |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | SOLUTION! Samba + XFS + ACL support, Libor Vanek |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS corruption!, Austin Gonyou |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE - remove unneeded locking implementation from dmapi, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |