Hello Paul
On 6 Nov 2001, at 15:19, Paul Fleischer wrote:
> I would either go with ext3 (which even is ext2 compatible AFAIK) or
> XFS. They really seem to be the most stable. Reiser is not bad, but I
> have had some terrible experiences with it - however, I do still use it,
> it is nice, but IMHO not suited for production systems yet (allthough I
> beleive that many people do actually use it in production).
This comment seems to be typical of the responses I have had so
far. Based on this feedback, I think, we will stick to ext2 on the
customer boxes for the moment and probably also kernel 2.2, but
we will start migrating onto woody.
However I will setup a journaling Maildir box in our office and see
how it goes. (Production yes, but still under close supervision).
But I have two followup questions:
- Does ext3 have any performance bennefit over ext2 when handling
large Maildir directories?
- It seems, that at this point in time, xfs is more stable than
reiserfs. However I am not sure if that is because fewer people
have tried it, and hence fewer people have experienced problems.
Are there many xfs users our there? Is the development active?
If not is it because the xfs is stable, or has the xfs initiative
lost momentum?
Thanks
Ian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Forbes ZSD
http://www.zsd.co.za
Office: +27 +21 683-1388 Fax: +27 +21 64-1106
Snail Mail: P.O. Box 46827, Glosderry, 7702, South Africa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
