On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:07:59PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
..
>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.
That would truly surprise me. I would guess that the majority of
Linux boxen in the world are running ext2.
>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.
I think that ext3 offers something that XFS doesn't, journalling
of the data as well as the directory metadata. I found this from
the postfix mailing list:
http://www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb/postfix/ext3.shtml
Bill
--
INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!''
-- Emiliano Zapata.
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
