On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 14:42, Les Bell wrote: > Thanks for that clarification, Bryan. So really, do we need to call out XFS > as a special case?
Nope. I was just saying the standardized, POSIX-compliant EA/ACL implementation in kernel 2.5.3+ and backported to 2.4 is supported by both Ext3 and XFS (including SGI's official version). > How about other filesystems like Reiser? I was not aware that ReiserFS supported the standardized, POSIX-compliant EA/ACL implementation. But I don't entertain the idea of running ReiserFS for my own reasons. If ReiserFS _does_ indeed support the same EA/ACL approach (it may in 2.6?), then it _should_ be included. BTW, don't read much into my non-use of ReiserFS. Clearly the most advanced and innovative filesystem in a long time is ReiserFS, hands down. But that's part of its problem. While you _can_ trust ReiserFS to journal and read from it correctly, and even to detect whether or not the journal is usable, I feel you can _not_ trust it's "off-line" utilities. Long story short, while the kernel code is kept well in-sync, it's far too dynamic, and Hans has been proven time and time again to be unable to keep the off-line userspace tools in-sync. Ext2/3 and XFS have the same static organization since the mid-'90s, and that means the world to me (although I did run into a major bug in XFS 1.1, like many did). -- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
