ext3 vs. reiserFS

[Net Llama!]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Andrew Mathews wrote:
> "Net Llama!" wrote:
> >
> > ext3 & ReiserFS are not the only journaling FS around.  There's also XFS,
> > and JFS.
> >
> > I use XFS, and have never had any problems.
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Harry G wrote:
> >
> > > I am going to be setting up a new workstation, probably with Suse.  I
> > > have a little experience with ext 3 file system (OK so far) but are
> > > there any advantages of one over the other?  File integrity is the
> > > prime consideration, as apposed to speed.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Harry G
>
> Hands down XFS is the winner for me. I've had numerous problems with
> ext3 and data corruption on machines that run Reiserfs without a hiccup.
> ext3 wins the speed contests, Reiser seems more stable, XFS is far more
> mature with SGI's core code that's proven on thousands of high end
> servers and workstations.  JFS is also proven and I have over 90 RS/6000
> machines running AIX 4.3 and 5L that never so much as blink on a power
> failure recovery. I'd choose in order:
> XFS
> JFS
> Reiser
> ext3
> ext2

Yes, to elaborate a bit more on my experience with XFS, its been rock
solid for me.  I once (foolishly) forgot to plug the laptop with XFS into
AC power, and left it up overnight.  Needless to say, the battery died,
and the box never shutdown properly.  However, as soon as I plugged it in,
and powered it up, I was good to go.

There are actually alot of XFS performance tuning steps you can take to
make it perform alot more in line with ext3.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman				netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step			     http://netllama.ipfox.com