On 12/03/02 18:16, Bill Campbell wrote:
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.
I wasn't talking about just Linux boxen, but all Unix.
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
Why would this be useful? Sounds like making a backup of your backup.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
6:40pm up 2 days, 4:08, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.07
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
