On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:23:56 -0400 Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I favor running a journalling FS. You're much less likely to get > corruption from a crash. If you do crash, your system will come up > faster. The performance hit is negligable. > > I've used ReiserFS in the past on my laptop. I favor ext3 nowadays. > It's supported by most rescue CDs and can be used as an ext2 FS. The > ext2 tools (fsck, resize, etc) are very well developed and tested. > I've been using ext3 on LVM partitions on top of 2 IDE drives in a > RAID-1 setup. Resizing works very well with ext3 for me. I had started to use ext3 on my desktop system upgraded from ext2, and we use ext3 on the BLU server because we upgraded on the fly. Probably, the best thing that ext3 has going for it is its compatibility with ext2. ReiserFS has some advantages is that they optimize small files so less space is wasted. The only issue I had with ReiserFS is that under ext2/3 you can run fsck repairs on the root file system (in single user mode mounted read-only) where on ReiserFS, you need to boot a rescue system. Until I discovered that the memory was bad, on one of my laptops, I could not reliably boot from either a floppy or a CD. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature