On 12/03/02 17:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Precisely. ext3 preserves compatibility with many terrabytes of ext2 data.This isn't entirely true. I'd wager that there's alot more XFS, AFS & JFS boxen out there than ext2/3, with alot more data on them.
XFS, ReiserFS, JFS, AFS, blahFS are replacements that require considerably
more work to implement in existing systems. Moreover, not that this is a
bad thing, you also have to learn new commands and habits for administering
them.
If ext3 has worked great for some folks, i'm happy for them & their data. The bottom line for me is that just a single problem with ext3 was more than i had with XFS. Ignoring how much time a fsck takes on ext2/3 still doesn't make it any better. Just watching & praying that everything turns out ok is not my idea of a good time.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
6:00pm up 2 days, 3:28, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.14, 0.12
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
