Brent L. Bates wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, XFS is the ONLY file system to use, period. If > you care about not only performance, but also reliability, use XFS. I can confirm this, I had quite a few power line cuts and xfs always had mercy upon me. > XFS > compiled into kernel support isn't needed any more since 4.x. It is now in > modules. On the Scientific Linux group, the person doing the 4.x Live CD/DVD > added XFS support at one point, after I asked him about it. I do not know if > he has made that standard now or not. So can I consider the xfs module implementation as being well tested and stable? > Red Hat strips out XFS support from > everything they do, so that makes things harder to do. I guess they do not > like competition from SGI and do their best to discourage XFS use. Some > Scientific Linux and CentOS people try to put it back in to some extent. I've > had to create my own DVD's with full XFS support, including fresh full > installs of only XFS file systems. Also included XFS support in rescue mode. > I did that for 4.x. I didn't do it completely right and I haven't had a > chance to try it again for 5.x. I really need to do that, but just never have > the time to get it done. I wish someone else with more experience doing these > things would do it. > > Greetings Michael -- Michael Kress, kress at hal.saar.de http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L