XFS, ReiserFS, And ext3 Comparisons

[Robert E. Raymond]

On Tuesday 25 March 2003 07:38 am, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
> 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?

I thought there was a SxS on XFS?

You need an XFS patched kernel, and you might want to upgrade to 2.4.20, now 
that 2.4.13 is a year and a half old now.

Alternatively, use the 2.5.xx series.  XFS support is built-in :D

					Bob Raymond

-- 
Linux EPoX.Linux.Raymond 2.5.65-ac3 #3 Mon Mar 24 00:13:31 UTC 2003 i686 AMD 
Athlon(tm) processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
 11:16:00 up 1 day, 10:59,  2 users,  load average: 0.24, 0.11, 0.03
How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they
claim they'll make you?