XFS, ReiserFS, And ext3 Comparisons

[Robert E. Raymond]

On Tuesday 25 March 2003 02:31 pm, Net Llama! wrote:
> 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?
> >
> > Alternatively, use the 2.5.xx series.  XFS support is built-in :D
>
> yea, but then he's really playing with fire.

I've been using only 2.5.xx since mid-October.  No data loss or anything 
major- finally have USB again after some issues with ACPI, APIC, and VIA's 
odd implementation.


					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
 14:59:48 up 1 day, 14:43,  2 users,  load average: 0.14, 0.32, 0.28

No, I do not know what the Schadenfreude is.  Please tell me, because
I'm dying to know.

		-- Homer Simpson
		   When Flanders Failed