Jim, The basic rule of thumb I've heard is that Reiserfs is very good at file systems with lots and lots of small files. For just about anything else, I would say ext3, mainly because it's easily changeable between ext2 and ext3 for whatever reason you might want to do that. (Perhaps have ext3 used by a system that writes to it, but ext2 for systems that link to it read-only? Maybe.)
There was a web page that compared the relative performance of the various journaling file systems, but I haven't looked at it in quite a while. I don't know if they even mention JFS there or not. I'd have to look through the archives to dig up the URL. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sibley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Reiserfs vs ext3 vs ext2 -snip- For me the questoin migh be: which is better - ext3, reiser, whatever. Redhat votes for ext3, SuSE votes for reiser. Ext2 is not even a contender. Regards, Jim Linux S/390-zSeries Support, SEEL, IBM Silicon Valley Labs t/l 543-4021, 408-463-4021, [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Grace Happens ***
