Re: HFS+ (MacOS) in contrast to EXT2 (Linux-i386)
What you are saying about ReiserFS is really unfortunate. When I read the
archive, there is no question that XFS is a lot more reliable than ReiserFS.
On the other hand, It seems that the Linux community is promoting heavily
ReiserFS vs XFS/JFS, and that seems totally contradictory with the feedback
I got so far.
It's too bad that the XFS module (at least on ppc) is not part of the
pre-compiled kernel image (ReiserFS is), and that the XFS kernel patches lag
a few kernel revs behind, making it mostly obsolete by the time you have to
install it on the latest 2.4 kernel (don't know about 2.2.x but can't afford
this alternative due to platform support.)
Laurent
> From: Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:32:37 +0200
> To: Michel Dänzer <michdaen@iiic.ethz.ch>
> Cc: Laurent de Segur <ldesegur@mac.com>, debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: HFS+ (MacOS) in contrast to EXT2 (Linux-i386)
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:27:55AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> Laurent de Segur wrote:
>>
>>> Talking of which... Is anyone using one of the journaling fs (Reiser, XFS,
>>> JFS) on PowerPC daily and having some comments they would like to report? I
>>> was planning on switching to ReiserFS or XFS for my home dir. Which one, if
>>> any, would be the most stable?
>>
>> I posted good reasons here not to use ReiserFS. I used it for a few months
>> but
>> switched to XFS a few weeks back and I'm more than happy I did.
>
> BTW, even on i386, reiserfs has some serious problems in some cases, and its
> use is still discouraged. my (i386 smp) box crashed various times because of a
> ide dma error while running apt-get upgrade, and reiserfs completely corrupted
> the /var/lib/dpkg/status file, and a few others as well, which resulted in a
> rather hhopeless system, with regards to dpkg (it mostly worked well but the
> dpkg database was hoosed).
>
Reply to: