I beg to differ, as I posted previously I gave up on ext2/3 because of lost data - not everyone agrees that ext2/3 is the best fallback!
Better performance with reiserfs3 as well as peace of mind goes against ext2/3 for me. As I said - YMMV - I have looked at my usage, number and type of failures for both systems some time back and reiserfs3 came up tops for me. You need to do the same: run both systems and see what is best for your environment. I will move to reiserfs4 when there is some consensus it it is getting stable as it has some nice features I like, as well as the performance potential. Unfortunately, asking "which FS is best" is one of those questions that falls into the same class as "how long is a piece of string". Do the sums yourself as everybody's experience is different. BillK On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 15:19 -0300, Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales wrote: > Sometimes that happens, too much information. If I had to make a > decision, in your case, I'd use ext3. Everyone said it was stable, > reliable. All the others show some cases of failure. Maybe you can put > two test volume with reiserfs and xfs with data that is not really > significant and benchmark, test for data corruption, etc. > > You can't go wrong with ext3. ;) > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
