Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>> <bitchy>
>> Here you realize the difference between a wannabee "enterprise
>> filesystem" and an "enterprise filesystem" that was designed as such
>> from the very beginning ....
>> </bitchy>
> The automatic filesystem check is an issue of filesystem policy, and
> says nothing about the implementation thereof. Neither, I should add,
> does the appelation "enterprise". :)
Right, I don't count on these terms - I was just joking when I put that
in quotes. Still the most obvious difference is _not_ in filesystem
policy but in design: XFS simply does not need such a check. If you
still like to reorganize the filesystem (for example to optimize file
access and to reduce fragmentation) you can run a sort-of check program
(xfs_fsr) while the filesystem is in use !
> If I had to pick, I'd go for reiserfs because of the nifty tail
> folding. But saying that XFS is somehow more reliable than the other
> choices is, honestly, kinda silly.
To my experience XFS is much less sensible to bad block failures on a
disk than reiser. If you take bad blocks into account then XFS _is_
more reliable. But I didn't aim at reliability, I was aiming at the
comfort of not having to bother about delay caused by filesystem checks
- in this case XFS gives you the optimum of that is available on Linux.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
