On 8/3/07, Yiorgos Stamoulis <yiorgos-lists at stamoulis.eu> wrote: > XFS allegedly handles large files better than ext3/reiserfs. > > and we all know that vmx files can be . . . . big! > > Has anyone run any benchmarks on xfs / ext3 / reiserfs to establish > which is better suited for holding virtual machines? The only reason I'd avoid xfs here is for x86 systems. XFS still doesn't play well with kernels using 4k stacks. This has improved, but it still can leave you with crashes/corruption. For x86_64 systems the problem isn't nearly as bad, as this kernel uses 8k stacks, so xfs is a bit more reliable. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell