Reliability first, then performance is the way I look at it - no matter what the system. Although XFS has some good performance numbers.

If you have spare partitions - or even just one - you can copy a partition to it, remake the fs and copy back.

Sometimes we can't do what is theoretically correct. I'll end up with a system that's a file and dns server, and maybe a firewall, too.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:25:46 -0700 Rex Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Glad things are back to normal.

Asking about a file system is like asking about religion <G>. I've heard good and bad on resierfs. Personally I use XFS and have been very happy with it.


I'll look at it. I used ReiserFS because small-file performance
is supposed to be better. Reliability, however I've decided will
be my preference for this firewall/router/file server. (Yes, I
know that the functions should be broken up. And I will, later.)


It's too bad that I didn't decide this in the first place. Now
I have to think about some strategy to back up so that I can migrate
to a new fs. ugh.


Thanks for the help.


-rex


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Reply via email to