On 06/17/06 07:39:16PM +0200, Thomas Steffen wrote: > 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. >
Every time I've tried reiserfs it's resulted in problems, not usually right a way, but eventually. The last time the corruption wasn't even detected by the kernel driver or reiserfsck, both said the fs was fine but any time I accessed a certain file the screen would blank and the box would hang, I had to hookup a serial cable to figure out that it was even reiserfs. > 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. > AFAIK grub will never work with /boot on XFS because of where the XFS superblock is, it's not too big of a deal to make a small ext2 /boot though. I'm using XFS on i386, sparc64 and Alpha without any issues, but I don't have any AMD64 system to put it on yet. Jim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]