On Monday 06 February 2006 20:32, Wesley Parish wrote: > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:30, Ben Devine wrote: > > On 2/4/06, Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > jfs: > > > > * very low cpu overhead (lowest) > > > > * file writing unaffected by partition load > > > > * flushes to disk when the IO scheduler tells it to > > > > (see /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt under io vm > > > > heading)(/proc/sys/vm/ > > > > > > I tried jfs on my /usr partition 3 years ago, and it was far from > > > reliable then. I had to fsck-jfs it several times because it > > > failed. So after that I > > > chose reiserfs for /usr and it hasn't failed me yet. > > > > > > Wesley Parish > > > > > > Yes but over 3 years Alot can change. > > > > So Comparing it with a 3 year old experiment is hardly fair. > > I'm not denying that. But where reiserfs was three years ago, that may > be where jfs is now. In other words, it's got a lot of catching-up to > do.
Um, Well. JFS is a time tested filesystem. See:- http://jfs.sourceforge.net/ It's been an IBM product for many years, was available for O/S2, and has been in the Linux world for at least 4 years. It's one of the bones of contention in the SCO versus IBM kerfuffle. I have never tried JFS out in practice. Can any other member make an informed comment? -- CS
