In a message dated: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 17:15:24 EST Benjamin Scott said:
>> - The cons [for XFS] are ... > >Also: > > - Relatively new filesystem for Linux Well, so is ext3 for that matter. And ext3 is only *just* recently considered stable enough for production use, whereas XFS has been out there for a while. Sure it's new for Linux, but IMO, that's better than completely new for everything. XFS has been out in the field and tested by thousands of people for over 7 years. All they need to do is port to Linux. The that's a far simpler task than writing a file system of any kind from the ground up, then debugging all the issues the first time around. > - 2.4 kernel only Not as major a problem as it was before they ended the VM-of-the-week games :) > - Can only grow (not shrink) the filesystem Okay, I've got to ask. When have you ever been given the opportunity to *shrink* a file system? If you have to do this often, I want your user base 'cuz mine are constantly asking for more and more! ;) > The biggest complaint I have is that the userland tools and documentation >are a little unpolished. They do the job, but the user experience is a >little harsh. Aside from the usual problem of "kernel hackers can't design >UIs or write docs", Hey, we were complaining about file systems here. No fair dragging all of Open/Free software in to this debate ;) >I believe English is a second language for all the >ReiserFS hackers. (Then again, I'm sure their English is better than my >Russian.) Their English is probably far better then that of some on this list ;) ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
