I was under the impression that for sheer performance you can't beat reiserfs,,,, if you want nfs then don't use it... but for nearly anything else, it seems fine... I don't use anything else nowdays... rgds Frank -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Badran Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2001 12:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Reiser FS or ext3? On Monday 10 September 2001 5:25 pm, you wrote: > On my 8.0 system, I'm using Reiser FS for all partitions except for /boot, > which is ext2. I've seen on the web page about how 8.1 will have support > for ext3 (which I presume is new?) in the kernel. And I've seen comments > here which suggest that there are 8.1 beta testers on the list who are > using it on their systems. So the question is: What's the deal with ext3? > Good, bad? How is it different, what are the advantages/disadvantages of > using it? Ive seen benchmarks which suggest it is slower than reiserfs generally. Its main advantage is that you can convert existing ext2 partitions to ext3 without reformatting them (not relevant in your case i believe). Ive also read that some apps that make bad assumptions about how filesystems work (namely qmail and i think NFS) have some issues with reiser. Ive personnally used reiser for about a year and bit and it has served me very well, so if you are happy i cant reccomend a change, but im sure there are many more advantages/disadvantages between the two which may swing you desision.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
