Re: Sarge with ext3, reiserfs (3/4?) or xfs?
On Feb 07 2005, Jan Meijer wrote:
> This time I wanted ACLs.
>
> So ext3 would be rather out of the question, for multiple reasons.
Why? I'm using ext3 here with ACLs and I'm not dreaming. Really, ACLs is
no excuse for not emplying ext3.
> Come ReiserFS and XFS into the game. Which one to choose? I've heard
> positive reports of fellow-admins on XFS and am not quite sure whether
> ReiserFS4 made it into Sarge. Which would be needed to get ACLs.
First of all, reiserfs4 is clearly marked as not mature enough even in
recent kernels (like the one I'm running, which happens to be
2.6.11-rc3-mm1).
If you actually happen to choose reiserfs, then I guess that you should
stick with reiserfs3.
And I've been seeing some horror stories in the lkml regarding XFS. This
would be the next filesystem that I would try (given that it automatically
incorporates many goodies), but running my systems stably (especially
regarding something as critical as the filesystem) has a vast priority over
speed or convenience.
And, again, both ext3 (and ext2, for that matter) have support for ACLs.
Hope this helps, Rogério.
--
Learn to quote e-mails decently at:
http://pub.tsn.dk/how-to-quote.php
http://learn.to/quote
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm
Reply to: