Well, there's IBM's JFS, and ext3, and SGI's XFS. JFS is still a bit
raw, and i wouldnt' trust it in production environment. ext3 seems to
be coming along nicely, but i don't know how well it behaves with NFS.
XFS, IMO, is the grand prize winner. I'm using it on one of my boxes,
and haven't had a single problem. Just for giggles, i've hit the power
button, and the box was back up & humming along happily less than 10
seconds later. Also, XFS excels when dealing with large files. When i
say large, i mean terabytes. ReiserFS absolutely sux at large files
with performance numbers that make FAT32 look good. ext3 is pretty
comparable to ext2 in terms of filesize speed perofrmance.
Bottom line, go with XFS. See the SxS i wrote up for help getting it
up.
--- Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I was at Caldera Forum in Santa Cruz last week, somebody
> mentioned
> that there are potential problems with reiserfs file systems if
> they're
> mounted via NFS on other systems. I would like to use some kind of
> file
> system that doesn't require lengthy fscks on large RAID arrays
> (hardware or
> software), but these large file systems are accessed almost
> exclusively via
> NFS. If the reiserfs isn't trustworthy in this application, what are
> the
> alternatives?
=====
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com
.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
