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. --