On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 18:14, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > > These are running backuppc and need better-than-ext3 > > performance at creating/removing files. > > If performance is your bag, then ReiserFS pleases in many > areas -- including deletion. XFS absolutely stinks when your > filesystem is lot of small, constantly changing files -- and > excels better when there are large files as well as small > (including extents and delayed writes for fighting > fragmentation). The reiserfsck runs seemed to work OK so my only complaint about that part is the oddball syntax needed to actually make it fix anything. I'm just wondering why it is so likely to need the fsck at all (maybe 50% of my crashes when busy) and if xfs would be better about that. I thought it was supposed to know what was committed to disk and never leave it in an inconsistent state. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com