> I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed > over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most > testing there. Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd > strongly recommend it. If not, ext4 might be safer (with write > through). It will be slower, but safer. > > With a UPS, XFS's default 'write-back', will give the fastest > performance for large file writes (I think reads as well). It's worst > performance is on "removing" large numbers of files, as that is pretty > much a synchronous operation...
I would just use ext4, it does not have the ext3 large file slowness or xfs slowdown with lots of small files. John -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
