Kevin Ross put forth on 4/24/2010 9:46 PM: > So if Btrfs were more mature, or if ZFS were included in the kernel, I'd > recommend either of those. But as it is, I think JFS is the way to go.
Except for the fact that JFS has almost zero development and/or bug fix activity these days. The project appears idle: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=jfs-commit XFS on the other hand enjoys serious, sustained, active development: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates XFS has been very mature, stable, and performant for many years, and continues to become even better little by little. I'm on the mailing list and I see dozens of patches submitted _per day_. There's nothing inherently wrong with JFS, but if it's not being maintained/developed why use it? All the principals are IBM employees, and they're doing no work on it. On top of that, they aren't allowing outside developers. The JFS project is pretty much dying on the vine for all practical purposes. The stale code will linger on in the kernel until IBM abandons it or the project allows in developers who really want to work on it. I'm guessing that Linus will boot it from the tree after it lingers without substantial changes for a few years. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd5327c.4080...@hardwarefreak.com
