"Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > it sounds to me like you want a more reliable filesystem, for this > purpose you do NOT want reiserfs yet. i would stick with ext2 which > is a very mature, stable and reliable filesystem NOW.
And you get to wait for fsck forever and ever and ever and ever and .. > wait for Reiserfs to grow up a bit more. you may actually be more > interested in XFS in a bit then in reiserfs. XFS actually makes > more sense from the huge filesystem/disk size angle anyway. I have no investment one or the other. What about XFS makes more sense? jas.
