Re: HFS+ (MacOS) in contrast to EXT2 (Linux-i386)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:14:57AM -0700, Laurent de Segur wrote:
> > 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.)
> >
>
> I've tried ext3 on x86 and it has been running great for a while for me. I
> have yet to test it on ppc, but I will be soon.
ext3 has the added advantage of converting an existing ext2 filesystem in
place, and allowing your disk to still be mounted by a machine running
ext2. None of the others can do that.
-jwb
Reply to: