> > questions (relative to samba configuration and behaviour) : > > - is there a better fs type (ext2, 3, xfs...) for this ? > > my advice would be xfs. Never had anything but trouble ( severe fs corruption > beyond repair, every time, on all machines. Am i the only one ???) with > reiser. Ext3 is fine but probably slower. Avoid ext2 unless you don't mind > spending hours fscking 1,4 Tb of storage in case of power failure or > whatever.
I must agree. Reiserfs is quite fast but not very reliable. It doesn't support ACLs (AFAIK), reiserfsck is completely broken (unlike other fs with reiser you have almost no chance to save data after fs corruption). If you know Hans Reiser, you understand ... Ext3 can be interesting for great compatibility and proved ext2 design, but I also reccomend XFS - it's fast, reliable and has advanced features (i.e. XFS ACLs works great with samba). The only disadvantage of XFS is the fakt that it's not part of vanilla kernel, but I will probably change soon cause now it's already in the -ac branch. -- Honza Houstek -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
