Sorry Len for the off-list post. Wrong 'to', no excuses. Doug. On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:11:19AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:14:01PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Are there other issues in choosing ext3 vs jfs? > > You might be able to install to JFS, but I am fairly sure you can't boot > from JFS, so using JFS for / (I still don't see the point of a fancy > filesystem for an almost static small filesystem) requires using a > seperate /boot with ext2 or ext3 anyhow. Why not just have ext3 on / > and use JFS if you feel like it for the other volumes? >
Yes you can boot directly to JFS, have done it for a while now. Rock solid, even full filesystem checks are quite fast (which I think was one of the design criteria) and since I live in the country with no UPS, power-failure reslilience is an issue (I know, not only should I buy two disks, but a UPS as well). JFS is also faster (very noticible on a 486, I'm sure less so on an Athlon). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
