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.
But then, i have one of those 40 GB IBM drives that might, or might not, have problems, with my previous disk, i had no problem, but i died during a apt-get run, not sure if it is related to reiserfs or something as i just did upgrade kernels, before that, i had no problem with reiserfs, safe one of the first unofficial patches, and that was when i frooze the machine with X (some pci bus conflict) while X was writing to the disk. I am not sure it is fair to compare filesystems when you are not sure of the underlaying harddisk though. > 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.) Friendly, Sven Luther
