Re: HFS+ (MacOS) in contrast to EXT2 (Linux-i386)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:48:12PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
And we would not expect them to do that either.
Would you expect to convert from vfat to ext2/3? You can convert from fat16
to fat28 also. And to ntfs from fat.
This seems to be the first main stream example of FS conversion in linux.
Mike
Reply to: