Morten Torstensen wrote: > Johnny Hughes wrote: >> Personally, I would never use anything except ext3 on a RH based >> kernel ... but that is just me. > > Yup.. would love to use JFS, but for me it is not worth it. RH basically > test NOTHING but ext3. They might test function, but not thorough > reliability tests in stress scenarios. > > I say that from observing RH, not on actual knowledge of what they test > and how. > > Bottom line is that I agree with Johnny... if you positively don't > *need* another filesystem, use ext3. > The Linux kernel's choices of filesystems all have strengths and drawbacks. ext3 is robust against minor hardware faults. It however can have its directory and some file data messed up real bad when it crashes or encounters power failure. I have had to manually go through mail queues to see what can be salvaged before deleting the entire lot. This is still better than XFS where I don't even bother looking for salvageable mails. ext3 never matched XFS' performance though...so it is pick your poison. I guess the best thing is probably to get a battery backed up NVRAM device to use as your external journal and run with data=journal with ext3. This ought to run all other filesystems out of town in terms of performance and integrity for many cases. The Linux kernel positively needs another filesystem.