<quote who="Peter Hardy">
> There's only so much you can glean from benchmarks, especially when google
> only seems to know about results that are a couple of months old.
Check out recent issues of Kernel Traffic and LWN's kernel page.
> So I'd be very interested to hear experiences, both good and bad, from
> people using reiser, ?fs, ext3, foo.
reiserfs: Nice for systems you have to use Maildir on, various versions have
issues with mail spools, you're pretty much fucked if anything happens to
your system. ResierFS 4 looks like the filesystem from heaven or hell,
depending on whether the phrase "filesystem modules just like Photoshop
plugins" scares the living shit out of you.
xfs: Not even close to entering a mainline kernel, though I would vouch for
its stability. Will probably enter 2.5 and might be backported - depends on
what else gets backported, as it changes a lot of underlying kernelness.
Pretty fast, nice tools for analysis and recovery, and based on long
standing SGI work on IRIX's XFS. Can do kickarse stuff like POSIX ACLs (a
SAMBA server based on XFS and SAMBA 2.2 would kick some serious arse) and
SGI's multimedia enhanced filesystem variants. I use this exclusively,
tracking the SGI CVS kernel.
ext3: Red Hat 7.2 uses this by default, you can upgrade to it in about 3
seconds. If you're not running RH's kernel, it's probably easiest if you go
with the -ac kernel tree, as it's already integrated into them. Benchmarked
as faster than ext2, and provides the usual no-fsck goodies. Good tools, and
very well tested for a "new" (hey, it's just ext2 with pants) filesystem.
Email Daniel Phillips and ask him what's happened to his TUX2 filesystem.
- Jeff
--
"I'm taking no part in your merry 5-way clusterfuck - sort that mess
out between yourselves." - Alexander Viro
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
