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