On Wednesday 24 December 2003 22:49, Collins wrote: > On Wednesday 24 December 2003 13:12, Thomas Richards wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I was thinking of maybe a 10 GB /root partition on ext3 > > to store important files. Has anyone compared JFS to ext3?
I tried jfs on a recent install and had lots of strange behavior. perhaps I set something up wrong, but I had to manually fsck the thing ( after clean shutdowns ) at every boot. I gave up after a week and went back to reiser. > > Can't help you with JFS, but I'm an EXT3 fan. Many of my correspondents on > the linux-users list prefer XFS over anything else, but it's not available > without getting patches until 2.6 (there are plans to merge it into 2.4), XFS is great, as long as you have a seperate power source for your drives, and a battery back up in the raid controller. Otherwise, you _will_ suffer dataloss when your machine gets hardbooted. strange, inexplicable loss in files that wern't even open when the machine went down. > I just completed a reiserfs install on a SUSE system and found the journal > trashed a couple of days later, so I've written that one off. This is the first bad thing i've heard about reiser in a long time, but i'll take your word for it. was the journal on the same drive? > > Unless you are putting up a heavy duty server, I don't think you'll notice > a real speed difference with any of these fs. I've used EXT3 almost since > its beginning without any problems. I have to agree that ext3 is the safest option out there. ( barring ufs2 with softupdates :) > > Enjoy your new machine. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
