On 6/16/06, Hemlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read some articles googling for xfs, ext3 and jfs and such. Leaning towards xfs maybe?
Don't forget reiserfs. In my experience it works very well. It is supposed to be more space efficient. On the other hand it also seems to have performance problems in a few cases, that the other file systems don't have. Generally it is quite fast, though. Ext3 is certainly a safe choice, and with the directory hash it should give really decent performance. One big advantage is that you have so many ways to access it (rescue disk, Windows driver etc). XFS is very fast in my experience, but it did have some issues on AMD64. There where a number of recent kernel patches, e.g. log recovery is now compatible between 32bit and 64bit. I also found that it has a very annoying tendency of leaving corrupted files around after a crash (which I never had with ext2, ext3 or reiserfs). Grub did not support XFS, although that might be fixed now. There was also talk about problems between NFS and XFS, but I didn't not follow that. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
