Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates): - kernel from centosplus - kmod-xfs from centosplus - kmod-xfs from extras Bernhard >>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:57:49 -0400 >>>>> "BLB" == Brent L Bates <blbates at vigyan.com> wrote: BLB> I strongly recommend XFS over ext[23] ANY day. XFS is BLB> faster, more robust, and more dependable than ext. I've used BLB> it for years and it is rock solid. I've had it work through BLB> failing disk drives and number system crashes (caused by BLB> faulty memory). It takes a licking and keeps on ticking. BLB> :-) No need to `fsck' the drive. If there are any file BLB> system problems, one can run xfs_check with a live system. BLB> It isn't recommended as it can give false positives for a BLB> live running file system, but it can help if needed. BLB> xfs_repair has to be run on an unmounted file system, BLB> however, I've almost never needed to use xfs_check or BLB> xfs_repair. XFS has over a decade and pentabytes of use BLB> behind it. I wouldn't use any other file system. BLB> -- BLB> Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.) M.S. 912 Phone:(757) BLB> 865-1400, x204 NASA Langley Research Center FAX:(757) BLB> 865-8177 Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Email: BLB> B.L.BATES at larc.nasa.gov http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DI Bernhard F.W. Gschaider --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EMail: Bernhard.Gschaider at ice-sf.at WWW : www.ice-sf.at Jabber : bgschaid at jabber.org Tel: +43(3842)98282-42 Fax: +43(3842)98282-02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------