On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 11:44, Rich Wellner wrote: > Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > And use reiserfs too if you can. Big directories are *much* faster > > in reiser than many other alternatives. > > Guys, I've had lots of problems with Reiser. The whole point, IMHO, > is to have a FS that works when the system fails. On no less than > three out of three machines (differing OS versions, but all Redhat > based) we've used it on we've ended up with corrupt FS's after power > failures. Tain't right. (And yes, we've done our homework, gotten > the right kernel versions and such to make sure that the reiser guys > have no one left to blame (speaking of which, a file system built by > people who seem to be more interested in pointing fingers didn't sooth > us very much))
I won't bother getting too deep into this topic, but it works great for me. Had one pretty messy FS crash once, but reiser-tools fixed it up reasonably well (got back all the files I didn't have on tape yet anyway). > So we're moving on the ext3. So far, no problems. (What's the > emoticon for crossed fingers?) ext3 will have the same directory-list performance as ext2, which is what the original topic was. > If ext3 isn't your flavor, we've also been using xfs on terabyte > machines for at least a year with good success. We're moving to ext3 > instead of xfs on the reiser machines simply because Redhat started > supporting ext3 out of the box with 7.2 of their version. I expect XFS is probably better than extn at directory listing, don't know how it compares to reiser. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
