XFS, ReiserFS, And ext3 Comparisons

[Roger Oberholtzer]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:14:38 -0700
Andrew Mathews <andrew_mathews at linux-works.org> wrote:

> Net Llama! wrote:
> > Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing 
> > XFS, reiserFS & ext3:
> > http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13
> > 
> > looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS in the middle.
> > 
> <shameless plug>
> Linux on XFS is now our standard deployment model, replacing RS/6000 
> hardware and AIX operating systems. Ext3 just couldn't cut it in the 
> stability tests, and was way behind in performance and features.
> </shameless plug>
> 
> Here's another interesting read from Andrew Klaassen to the XFS list.
> (ReiserFS not included in this one)

Anyone care to comment on how difficult it is to install XFS on, say, a
2.4.13 kernel? Is it realistic to install it on a 2.4 series kernel?

-- 
+????????????????????????????+???????????????????????????????+
? Roger Oberholtzer          ?   E-mail: roger at opq.se        ?
? OPQ Systems AB             ?      WWW: http://www.opq.se/  ?
? Erik Dahlbergsgatan 41-43  ?    Phone: Int + 46 8   314223 ?
? 115 34 Stockholm           ?   Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657 ?
? Sweden                     ?      Fax: Int + 46 8   302602 ?
+????????????????????????????+???????????????????????????????+