On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:12:37 +0000 (UTC), James wrote: > > I would stay far away from reiser4. From what I can tell, reiser4 may > > never make it into the mainline kernel. Xfs and ext3 are both very > > good choices. Personally I have a /very slight/ preference for xfs, > > because of xfs_fsr and the tuning options available in /proc. > > I understand the comments about reiser4, although folks claim the > performance is wonderful. But do you think that xfs will outperform > reiserfs (3 series?).
It certainly does when working with large files. However, I've switched some of my filesystems back to reiser because of the lack of any way of safely shrinking XFS filesystems (although enlarging them is easier than with reiser). -- Neil Bothwick New Intel opcode #007 PUKE: Put unmeaningful keywords everywhere
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
