[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not sure if this is a dumb question, but why use JFS2? I imagine the
"market share" of JFS2 on Linux is probably only a few percent,
whereas EXT3 is probably 80% plus. While there may be some technical
advantages of JFS2, I imagine the level of support available is going
to be much less - so is it worth the risk?
Regards, Martin
Just as there are lots of screwdrivers and not one single type of
screwdriver for all jobs, you use the best screwdriver for the specific
job. It is similar with file systems - there is not one system that is
suitable to all tasks. Specifically in this case google mythtv and
filesystems.
Martin makes a good point, and while yours is valid too, *it bit me* is a very
significant lesson.
True, but just because MS has the biggest market share does not mean I
am going to run Windows (I'm sure there is more support available for
windows too). Don't get me wrong, for everything else I run ext3
because, as Martin says, it seems to be the defacto and most widely
used. It is just that in this case I was taking the advice of the Myth
people and not using ext3.
BTW I've never seen any mention of JFS wrt myth. XFS has touted advantages and
I use it for my 300G store, but ext3 has worked flawlessly on 300G too.
(mostly 5-10G files)
The myth site mentions JFS. It claims it is arguable as to which is
better JFS or XFS. More searching seemed to verify what the myth people
claimed about JFS and XFS so it basically came down to Myth's claims
that JFS is the best at deletion, however marginally that may be I'm
sure. If it doesn't work out, or XFS is the more
prevalent/supported/maintained of the 2 then yeah, I'd probably consider
moving to XFS. I really have no stick-it-out-through-everything-loyalty
to JFS.
Fil
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
