[CentOS] 64 bit hardware and filesystem size limit

[Cletus Murphy]

On 8/22/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> 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

Initialy I tested with ReiserFS v3 - but at the end of the day I went with xfs.

--