[CentOS] 64 bit hardware and filesystem size limit

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:16 -0700, Cletus Murphy wrote:
> 2. 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.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith     b.j.smith at ieee.org     http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if
you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman