>My reasoning mentioned a /required/, but not a /sufficient/ criterion. >In other words: not before it is proven in the field will I consider it for production use. >Remember the Linux 2.2 reiserfs 3.5 NFS woes? >Remember the early XFS-NFS woes? >These are all reasons to avoid a shiny new file system for serious work.
I agree, but you're generalising, this is not xfs and reiser4 is not 3.5 ;) If you don't try out the shiny new filesystem yourself, how can you possibly dismiss it based on the past failures of other filesystems? >For practical recovery reasons (error on root FS after a crash), ext3fs is easier to handle. You can fsck the (R/O) root partition just fine (e2fsck then asks you to reboot right away); for reiserfs, you'll have to boot into some emergency or rescue system... No biggie for me, just have a removable media of some sort with your running kernel and some basic tools. Y. Note:__________________________________________________________________ This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Jaguar Freight Services and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity. ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs.
