On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:14:38 -0700 Andrew Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Net Llama! wrote: > > Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing > > XFS, reiserFS & ext3: > > http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13 > > > > looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS in the middle. > > > <shameless plug> > Linux on XFS is now our standard deployment model, replacing RS/6000 > hardware and AIX operating systems. Ext3 just couldn't cut it in the > stability tests, and was way behind in performance and features. > </shameless plug> > > Here's another interesting read from Andrew Klaassen to the XFS list. > (ReiserFS not included in this one) Anyone care to comment on how difficult it is to install XFS on, say, a 2.4.13 kernel? Is it realistic to install it on a 2.4 series kernel? -- +����������������������������+�������������������������������+ � Roger Oberholtzer � E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] � � OPQ Systems AB � WWW: http://www.opq.se/ � � Erik Dahlbergsgatan 41-43 � Phone: Int + 46 8 314223 � � 115 34 Stockholm � Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657 � � Sweden � Fax: Int + 46 8 302602 � +����������������������������+�������������������������������+ _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
