Fwd: Re: [reiserfs-list] Fwd: Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] Fwd: Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:03:35 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Russell Coker <email@example.com>
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:53:46AM +0200, I. Forbes wrote:
> > - It seems, that at this point in time, xfs is more stable than
> > reiserfs. However I am not sure if that is because fewer people
> > have tried it, and hence fewer people have experienced problems.
> > Are there many xfs users our there? Is the development active?
> > If not is it because the xfs is stable, or has the xfs initiative
> > lost momentum?
> Although XFS is cool in many ways, the port for linux is pretty much
> a hack. I work for a company that is doing alot of development with
> XFS on Linux, although we are forced to use it, because it works with
> LVM growing filesystems etc. ReiserFS supports fs growth, but not over
> an LVM.
Hmm, I don't see why LVM has anything to do with it. If reiserfs can grow
(which it can) then you just grow the fs after the LV grows.
> I suggest ext3, it's the most solid codebase, and provides the best
> overall performance. We use it (ext3) for all other products except for
> this one that uses LVM (Can't really talk about the product, since
> it's still in development).
Well, it is true that you can't online resize ext3 yet (not enough hours
in the day for me to finish that), but you can offline resize it. That
may not be good enough for you application. I'm willing to be convinced
to work on it.
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page