On 12/03/02 19:07, Jerry McBride wrote:
That's not true. Recent benchmarking tests have shown XFS & Reiser to both be faster.On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:28:53 -0500 "Brett I. Holcomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:48:42PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
>> On 12/03/02 16:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Okay, now we're down to cases. ext3 is not immune to data loss, but it is
> far less so than ext2. I don't have a terrabyte raid array to worry about,
> so a "stupid time-consuming fsck" takes, oh, 10 minutes. Despite the
Is ext3 faster than ext2?No... same for XFS. ANY linux journaling fs will be slower than ext2...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
8:10pm up 2 days, 5:38, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
