On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:20:24 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Andre Pang">
>
> > personally, i'd think that reiserfs is far more stable than XFS, only
> > because it's got a lot more testing in the field, and scary numbers of
> > people (sourceforge, mp3.com) are using it on disk arrays over 1000GB in
> > size.
>
> Compared to XFS, which has "only" been in wide use since 1994?
>
> XFS is certainly new to Linux, but it's a very stable filesystem that has
> been in use for yonkles. A lot of the mess has already been sorted out...
i know XFS has been in use for a long time, and it's brilliant
for what it does. i'm just saying that it probably hasn't had
much exposure on _Linux_ yet on massive platforms, so statically
speaking, it'll probably have its fair share of bugs.
this isn't a good example to use, but NTFS has been around for
ages too, but you're utterly crazy if you want to use it for
storing important data, at least on Linux :). reiserfs on Linux
has been in development for quite a while now, so i think it's
probably had time to weed out many of the real show-stoppers.
it'll be interested to see what happens with reiser4. ditto for
ext3. i'm sure Stephen Tweedie will refuse to release ext3 to
the public unless it's at least as reliable as ext2.
> Unfortunately, XFS doesn't have a celebrity PITA representative. ;)
yeah :). Hans Reiser seems to be a pretty outspoken guy, but
hey, he's doing the Linux world a lot of good. having the first
journaling filesystem available for Linux has definitely put it
in a lot of places it would not have been feasible otherwise.
but they still need to hire a Steve!
--
#ozone/algorithm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - trust.in.love.to.save
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
