On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 10:37:27PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:53:41PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 10:38:45AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >
> > > So I use JFS for everything.
> > >
> >
> > I'm at the point of replacing one of my reiserfs's on an NFS server with
> > something else for reliability. (reliability is the *primary* criterion
> > for this server, by the way. I'd happily give up some speed for
> > reliability) I was going to go to ext3 because of its venerable age.
> > Now you hae me wondering about JFS.
> >
> > DO you have any more relevant facts? or links to facts?
> >
>
>
> There's a filesystem benchmark comparison on ibm's website somewhere (I
> don't have the link) and I think an article on the same topic in the
> linux gazette (from the installed packages) but I don't have them
> installed right now ('production box is small-disk 486, big box is Etch
> amd64, small footprint until Etch is stable).
Would those benchmarks test performance or reliability?
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems it appears
that jfs joesn't kournal file contents, although apparently both reiser3
and ext3 can be made to.
>
> I suppose for ultimate security there's three-disk raid1 in sync? (Why
> doesn't mount have a 'verify' option like dos used to)?
Already using a two-disk RAID. And occasional off-line backups.
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
