--On March 25, 2006 3:19:03 PM -0700 Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd tend to recommend ReiserFS or XFS first (to me Reiser is better, XFS second...Reiser seems to handle corruption a little better, except in the case of tail corruption in which case you lose all the tails on the filesystem possibly), followed by ext3. Ext2 isn't an option because for 500+G you need journalling.
I should also note that I say reiser's tools are better because they actually fix the filesystem. XFS we've had filesystems never quite fix after needing to be fixed by the xfs tools. They kept coming up with more errors, or crashing the machine despite the filesystem checking out as 'fine' after forcing a full check.
Reiser will take a while to mount such a large filesystem....As may XFS. I haven't treied anything that big recently with ext3 but you can try it...though I'm kind of interested now so I might see myself. My benchmarks would be out of whack with yours though because of CPU and storage backend differences. :)
-- "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler
