I prefer ext3 as well. I've used reiser on a few machines just for
playing. I do a lot of work with large files, like one directory will
hold 3 - 7 1024m files. Ext3 and reiserFS both seem to handle the files
equally well, but the machines who ran reiserFS for some reason
destroyed their journals.
Granted one of the machines was in use by a very inexperienced user who
I think might have accidentally blown the journal not shutting down
properly. But afterwords, I couldn't retrieve the data. Knoppix would
mount the fs because the journal was corrupt. If it ahd been ext3, I
could have retrieved that data, and not lost many months worth of
work...

nathan

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 13:58, Bill Jonas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 01:04:21PM -0400, Michael Havens wrote:
> > http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks.html
> 
> Be aware that those are *not* done by an unbiased third party but rather
> by the ReiserFS developers themselves.  I'm not commenting on the
> validity of the results, though.
> 
> I personally like ext3 since it's backward-compatible with ext2 (as long
> as the filesystem is cleanly unmounted), so you can use most of the
> tools and other OS FS support for ext2.  Just personal preference,
> though.  I used ReiserFS for a while and didn't have any problems (but I
> did hear of other people having problems).

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss