XFS, ReiserFS, And ext3 Comparisons

[Net Llama!]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Robert E. Raymond wrote:
> 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?

yup, i wrote it, and continue to maintain it:
http://sxs.sourceforge.net/sxs/administration/xfs.html

> 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.

indeed.  2.4.13 is a bug ridden nightmare, and XFS has come a long way
since then too.

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

yea, but then he's really playing with fire.

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