On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:16 -0700, Cletus Murphy wrote:
- I'm not going to open this up for a big FS thread but xfs/reiserfs
performs much better on large partitions then ext2/3 in my humble experience
Which ReiserFS? 3? 4? What about ReiserFS compatibility issues with various kernel interfaces? In those cases, Ext3 _is_ better because ReiserFS isn't an option.
Red Hat will not support ReiserFS until Hans starts supporting those interfaces. He won't, and compatibility with those interfaces are a "bread'n butter" for Red Hat, something that keeps me away from SuSE (and even SuSE admitted was a sore spot for their ReiserFS support back in 2000).
Now XFS on-the-other-hand, I think Red Hat really needs to wake up to. There are serious size/scalability limitations to Ext3 that XFS has solved very nicely for a long time. Red Hat really needs to start augmenting Ext3 support with XFS, and why they don't, I haven't heard one single, good answer.
XFS supports all the same kernel interfaces as Ext3, and has a better track record on many.