On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:19 +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> Quoting "Drexx Laggui [personal]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Or should I go with the fast(?) XFS? It's been said it's not suggested
> > for an encrypted fs, but I really don't know yet.
>
> At FS3 we use XFS on top of LVM2 on top of dm-crypt, allowing us to
> fully encrypt our laptops (except for /boot, which is unencrypted
> ext3).
While I really like XFS for the server, I'm backing off from
XFS on laptops. This, because my laptop doesn't have anything
in the CMOS setup that looks like a SMART toggle, and even
if it did, I don't think I trust SMART enough.
XFS doesn't have a facility for feeding badblocks data into it
so it can ignore the badblocks. Instead it relies on SMART
to save you from bad blocks. And since i don't have SMART,
and even if I did, I wouldn't trust it to relocate data
perfectly, I just don't use XFS on laptops. Instead I use
EXT3.
For servers though, with redundancy, plus backup, plus SMART,
I'd recommend/prefer XFS.
tiger
--
Gerald Timothy Quimpo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Business Systems Development, KFC/Mr Donut/Ramcar
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
-- http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
