The best performance results I have seen on Linux systems have involved the use of JFS. I found XFS to be a little slower, and it has the distinct demerit that it is not in the 'official' kernel tree yet, thereby meaning that you have to get into the pain of managing heavily-patched kernels. The "kernel management" issue strikes me as being a much bigger deal than the relatively minor performance difference.
Thank you for your answer (it's still me, now I'm using my "official" usenet account :))
Kernel management is not an issue for me because recent SuSE 2.4.x kernels already include XFS support by default.
What worries me is stability and tolerance to power failures and other "bad treatments". I have EXT2 here and I'm happy with it but since the servers would be located in client shops I wish to have something that doesn't need "human" input in such cases. Have you experienced (or heard) horror stories about XFS, expecially related to postgresql? Do you think JFS is better than XFS in this field too?
Thanks again. Kind regards,
-- Cris Carampa (spamto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
"Poveri fanatici comunisti, noglobal e affetti dalla sindrome anti-microsoft" (gli utenti Linux secondo un poster di ICOD)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
