Optimal XFS formatting options?
michael.monnerie at is.it-management.at
Tue Jan 24 04:31:07 CST 2012
On Freitag, 20. Januar 2012 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If ease (or cost) of filesystem administration is of that much
> greater priority than performance, then why are you using XFS in the
> first place instead of EXT?
Great experience in recovery of disaster filesystem problems on XFS. A
switch to another FS costs a lot of time, and why switch if it works
great? And administration comes down to mkfs, mount, maybe xfs_fsr, in
disaster xfs_repair, and sometimes xfs_growfs. Basically nothing.
Also, this list has been of great help during the years, whenever there
were problems they got fixed. That's ease of administration :-)
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc
it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the xfs