Weird boot problem??

[Ben Duncan]

Lanni has it pretty much nailed here. But for my 2 cents, performance 
shows for small files
ext3 / reiserfs handles them more effceitnly than XFS and/or JFS, with 
ext3 being ahead of
reiserfs. With the advant of ext3, I am seeing less and less reiserfs 
users and more and more ext3.

If you are running large databases, production machines, or anything 
considered VIP, I would use
XFS/JFS. For the casual user/home user who is interested in at least 
having some sort of
journal file system, I would go with ext3.

Most of the data corruption I have seen lately, has been from NEWER 
IDE hard drives failing.
I think they must have children younger than 8 assembling them in a 
third world country. So NO
journal file system will protect you from that, only good backups .....

Net Llama! wrote:
<SNIP>

>>But is XFS ready for prime time?? or should I wait to make any big
>>changes till kernel 2.6.
>>

<SNIP>
> 
> The debate over ext3 vs. XFS has started to appear akin to a religious
> war, as some folks on this list swear by ext3, others love XFS (myself

amen !!!!

> amongst them).  All i can note is that there are quite a few who have
> reported problems with ext3, yet i'm not aware of anyone experiencing
> problems with XFS.
> 
> If you're concerned over software being ready for primetime, then you have
> no business running RH8, since its hardly what most folks would consider a
> stable release.  Redhat's .0 releases have always been notoriously buggy.

And 8.0 IS still no exception. FWIW, SuSe 8.1 is about equal to 
RedHacks 8.0 release.

> 
<SNIP>

-- 
Ben Duncan   Phone (601)-355-2574     Fax (601)-355-2573   Cell 
(601)-946-1220
                         Business Network Solutions
                      336 Elton Road  Jackson MS, 39212
    "Software is like Sex, it is better when it's free" - Linus Torvalds