My reasons for recommending XFS are only my admittedly amateur gut
feelings and experiences. I have used ReiserFS and Ext3 and XFS and
have had massive fs corruption with reiser and ext3, massive enough to
force me to reinstall. I have had none of that with XFS. Also since
XFS is made by SGI, and they use it as their File System, so I would
think that it is fairly good.
--Alex
On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 00:47, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2002 10:49:37 -0700
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I say "Particularly on a Laptop" because laptops are the most likely
> > computers to be hard rebooted (i.e. running out of battery power), and
> > because of this you definitely want a journaled file system to minimize
> > data loss and fs corruption, and I've found XFS to be the most robust
> > and least prone to data loss. Also laptops tend to be turned on and off
> > more than desktops, and if you use a journaled fs, in the case of a
> > improper shutdown, you only have to restore the journal the next time
> > the computer boots, instead of checking the entire drive, cutting down
> > on boot times.
> > --Alex
> > On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 05:34, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > On 15 Jun 2002 14:02:39 -0700
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would highly
> > > > recommend and xfs install, particularly on a laptop.
> > >
> > > Why "XFS, particularly on a laptop" ?
> > >
> > >
>
>
> You are right about journalled FS. Why do you think XFS is "more robust" than
> ReiserFS or Ext3? What do you think about "HDD usage" (I mean hardware usage, i.e.
> more drive access, not dirve space usage) of these filsystems? Did you do some
> "amateur investigation" ?
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
