Cory Petkovsek wrote: > As for xfs, I probably wouldn't use it on a critical production box for > precisely the reason you stated. I thought about it for a non critical > production box, specifically our mail filter and one of our mail > servers. XFS is supposed to perform very well where there are a lot of > little files, like with reiserfs, because it is highly cached. This > would work well with a maildir imap server.
xFS was designed to scale well to humongous, massively parallel filesystems (e.g., 100 spindles w/ 64 CPUs). It also works just fine with a single disk and single CPU, though. I used xFS on IRIX for many years. I've never tried it on Linux. I use boring old ext3 on all the boxes at home. I don't have any real opinions on whether xFS, ReiserFs or ext3 is best, though. -- Bob Miller K<bob> kbobsoft software consulting http://kbobsoft.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
