Just a thought; If you ever have tried to restore or fix a botched reiserfs then you will know about the lack of attention the repair tools have gotten. I switched to e3 because of just such a "relevation". e3 uses (essentially) the well-tested and developed e2 system AND it's repair tools. This is "hugh" in my book.
If your looking for performance, you might consider XFS. Bob Finch On Wednesday 16 January 2002 06:27 am, Randy Edwards wrote: > > - ext3 file system by default - slower than ext2 because of the journal > > writes and syncs necessary. > > Has any thought been given to running ReiserFS with RedmondLinux? > As you know, the Reiser file system has been stable for longer than ext3 > and is significantly faster. > > Since RL is a new distribution out of the box backward compatability > issues would be minimal. To a converting Windows user I'd think that it > wouldn't make a difference whether the GNU/Linux file system was > ext2/ext3 or ReiserFS -- they'd both seem "Greek" (and unreadable by > Windows) to the user. - -- rl-users list. To leave, send "unsubscribe" without quotes in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/rl-users@chicago.redmondlinux.org/
