Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Greetings to all: >> >> I'm planning to install debian and planning to use XFS instead of Ext3, >> does anybody know how to do ti, or know of any advantage of one file >> system over the other, any recomendation will be appretiated. > > for a benchmark comparison > http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems/
This doesn't strike me as really rigorous. It also doesn't strike me as really current; their filesystems are patches vs. kernel 2.4.5, which is from May of 2001, and they express some concerns over the "testing" nature of ext3, where it seems to be quite stable for most people on this list. > use xfs instead of ext3 ... > ( if ext2 gets seriously messed up, ext3 is dead ) "If the bits get corrupted, your filesystem doesn't work." This applies to any filesystem. I've never heard of people having issues with ext3, and it being a layer on top of ext2 is generally seen as an asset (since older tools can still use the underlying filesystem). Common wisdom seems to be that ext2 is just fine for most users, but it has the annoyance of long fsck times if the machine goes down unexpectedly. ext3 is also fine for most users and gets around this. reiserfs is supposedly good for situations where you have lots and lots of small files (e.g., news servers), but there's some FUD about tool support for it. I haven't really heard anything compelling about anything else, including XFS. -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
