Re: HFS+ (MacOS) in contrast to EXT2 (Linux-i386)
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.
But then, i have one of those 40 GB IBM drives that might, or might not, have
problems, with my previous disk, i had no problem, but i died during a apt-get
run, not sure if it is related to reiserfs or something as i just did upgrade
kernels, before that, i had no problem with reiserfs, safe one of the first
unofficial patches, and that was when i frooze the machine with X (some pci
bus conflict) while X was writing to the disk.
I am not sure it is fair to compare filesystems when you are not sure of the
underlaying harddisk though.
> 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.)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: