Simon Fowler writes: > Actually, ext3 is a better choice than XFS if you really care about > your data - it does full data journalling (at a performance cost), > unlike XFS which only journals metadata. Since it halves your write > performance people generally don't use it, but it's there in ext3 . > . . > > In any case, filesystems that /aren't/ paranoid about your data > aren't things to be trusted . .
There are a zillion trade offs between the different journaling file systems. I heard a talk at one of the LinuxWorld's that compared the various ones ... reiser, xfs, ext3, something from ibm I think, and there was one more if I recall. They all have strengths and weaknesses and perform better or worse under different circumstances. They also have different feature sets. I haven't seen any comparison of any of the Linux journaling file systems vs. the MS windows journeling file system(s?) though. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities curt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
