I been moving my gentoo system to other partition (ran out of space).
My old partition ran reiserfs 3.6 and due to this discussion, I've decided to run ext3 in the new partition. Still to find out if it was a wise decision...
Anyway, the first thing I noticed was this:
# df
/dev/hda1 10080488 4406076 5162344 47% /mnt/gentoo
/dev/hda4 4763112 3948116 814996 83% /mnt/old
With exactly the same things in both sides, it seems that ext3 requires *much* more space ~450M.
Can this be right, or I messed up somewhere...??
Cheers,
Fernando
On 8/9/05, Bob Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:33:27 +0800
Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I too use XFS for my Home Directory. I think I've suffered 1 instance of
> curruption in the entire 2 years I've had this laptop. (Touch Wood)
>
Perhaps I should mention one of the main reasons I use XFS - the tools. Performance
is not a reason. Reliability is a reason. And the tools.
xfs_check and xfs_repair are about the best I've seen. No, if your LVM superblock is
trashed, they won't fix it. They fix the filesystem, not the disk/partition structure.
And xfs_dump/xfs_restore make cloning a partition very easy. Given all the discussion
in this list alone about cloning drives, I'm really surprised more people don't adopt XFS
just for this issue alone.
Disclaimer - yes I work for SGI. No I don't develop, I break software. And I pull plugs
on running systems. So any advice I give here on anything related to SGI products
should be treated with caution. No, I don't speak for SGI. And yes I really do use XFS
on almost all my systems - Trying ext3 on a Kurobox (200 MHz PPC runnng Gentoo) and
RiserFS on one of the desktop x86 systems.
Bob
-
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
