Summing it up, IMHO. - NTFS is not a choice, really, you wanna stay in linux land. Besides, you would have to find some tool|workaround for defragmenting it :/ - reiserfs is not that manageable: as others said, it does not allow recovery from filesystem damage (let alone from hd failure). Reiserfs4 promised a breakthru, but right now is not ready to be used. - ext3 has got decent performance for general purpose servers as well as desktop boxes, and you can find lot of recovery tools (even some win32 ones), so this is my main choice - go XFS on "big" servers with all the standard redundant hw equipment, but only if you foresee heavy filesystem workload
Besides, RAID 5 is not always a good choice: I got 2 adaptec and 3ware cards that got them bioses/nvram messed up thanks to power spikes during the big italian blackout back in 2003. And yes, they were behind online APC ups Mic On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:23 PM, RijilV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/5/24 A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Technical arguments aside, if you're serious about data loss and/or > > performance, you would be using hardware RAID anyway. 3ware cards are > pretty > > cheap and the extra money is well worth it for peace of mind. > > > +1 for 3ware. > > Also, the initial problem with this thread is that there were no > requirements listed. What's the best file system largely depends on > what you're doing. If its a IMAP server VS an Oracle database, you'd > pick two entirely different filesystems. > > Asking a what the best filesystem is without any qualifications or > requirements doesn't give you a very good answer, more likely you're > going to get which filesystem has the most fans. > > .r' > -- > [email protected] mailing list > >
