On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:04:32PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > Truly have found ext3 to be ho-hum, but I guess that's the > > point....;^) > > It's reliable, the performance is decent. > > I tried XFS for a while, but that was around 2.6.10, and there were some > serious bugs at the time that would cause system crashes and abysmal > performance when working with lots of small files (like say gcc source > code or something). It would take hours and often crash if you did rm > -rf on the gcc source dir or a kernel source. I switched to ext3 again > after that. If the bugs have indeed been fixed it may actually have > been a better choice for my mythtv box since it has lots of large files, > but I use ext3 there as well. > > I have never used JFS, although it seems support for it may be going > away and it might get dropped. Not sure, but perhaps it isn't worth > trying if the situation is that unclear. >
I had great success with JFS except that I switch away from it when told by the maintainer that IBM didn't recommend using it anymore. I use ext3 with data=journal mode since the power goes out here and I don't have a UPS. With default mode, only the metadata is journaled and you can lose data on power-failure. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]