On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:14:57AM -0700, Laurent de Segur wrote: > > What you are saying about ReiserFS is really unfortunate. When I read the > > archive, there is no question that XFS is a lot more reliable than ReiserFS. > > On the other hand, It seems that the Linux community is promoting heavily > > ReiserFS vs XFS/JFS, and that seems totally contradictory with the feedback > > I got so far. > > > > It's too bad that the XFS module (at least on ppc) is not part of the > > pre-compiled kernel image (ReiserFS is), and that the XFS kernel patches lag > > a few kernel revs behind, making it mostly obsolete by the time you have to > > install it on the latest 2.4 kernel (don't know about 2.2.x but can't afford > > this alternative due to platform support.) > > > > I've tried ext3 on x86 and it has been running great for a while for me. I > have yet to test it on ppc, but I will be soon. ext3 has the added advantage of converting an existing ext2 filesystem in place, and allowing your disk to still be mounted by a machine running ext2. None of the others can do that. -jwb
