On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:34:42AM -0500, Joe Klemmer wrote: > On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 07:24, Skylar Thompson wrote: > > > I have always been in favour of a mixed Ext3/ReiserFS system. Ext3 on all > > the critical parts (/, /usr, /home) with the appropriate journal data > > options (ordered on / and /usr, writeback on /home). ReiserFS would go no > > /var to handle a news spool. > > That's a nice setup, remind me to do that when I upgrade my mail > server. However, for RL I think it would be a bit of overkill. Of the > journaling options available I would pick ext3 because it is the more > stable, robust and least intrusive of the options.
Agreed. If one is approaching this from the perspective of kernel efficiency, however, kernel size is not adversely affected by the addition of both Ext3 and Reiser. Of course, you could always compile one as a module, but I prefer to have all my hard drive filesystems, along with CD-ROM and floppy, compiled right into the kernel, so I don't have to worry about losing modules during an emergency restoration. > [Now, to keep this from degenerating into a holy war, I am not saying > that ext3 is the best one. As far as I have been able to tell they all > (ext3, ReiserFS, XFS & JFS) work very well and are good enough for > production.] I have all four on a test-bed server, and they all interact very nicely, even on software RAID and NFS, for the most part. The only problem I ever experienced with NFS was with JFS, although the 1.0.12 release seems to have at least reduce that problem. -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
msg00294/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
