Re: ext2 vs ext3 vs xfs vs reiserfs

[Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku.hk>]

>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Hentges <eebe@gmx.net> writes:

    Matthias> Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ext2 which is in use
    Matthias> for many years and is well tested.

You probably cannot infer the stability of ext3 from that of ext2.  The
layout has been made mostly compatible, but the code has been changed for
much more than what you can trust without trying it.

    Matthias> Many people have reported problems (including data-loss) with
    Matthias> ReiserFS, but for most people ReiserFS works great.

I think that is experience during the time when Reiserfs is still
stabilizing.  I don't know anyone still unhappy with Reiserfs with its
stability.  The real problem of Reiserfs is that it is not compatible with
ext2 at all, and your only hope to create a Reiser filesystem is to create
it from scratch.  This trouble has to be weighed against the performance
benefit that is brought by the transition, which is basically none unless
you have a directory containing thousands of files (then Reiser will be much
better for looking up files in that directory).  That is for Reiser3.
Reiser4 is about to come out, and with luck it will get into Linux kernel
2.6/3.0.  They say performance doubles with this FS (they achieve this by
delayed allocation of blocks to minimize fragmentation), and perhaps that
will be a better time to switch FS.

Regards,
Isaac.