On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brent L. Bates <blbates@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I believe Florin Andrei had a typo in his message. No other file system
> will be as reliable as *XFS*. I've had XFS recover from system failures that
> Ext3 would/could not recover from. If you want dependability, reliability,
> and also large file systems, only use XFS.
Have you also had emacs write files where vim would not? Have you had
qmail deliver where postfix would not? I mean, if you're going to
attempt to start a holy war here in the mailing list, why stop at just
filesystems :-P
I believe XFS has some very good points where ext3 definitely lacks.
That said, on RHEL/CentOS with the 4k stack compilation, xfs on x86
systems where you were using an abstraction layer (lvm, software raid,
etc) xfs could get angry with you pretty quickly. EXT3 is widely
regarded as being more stable than others over the long-term, which is
why it's the default for a number of distros. Personal experiences may
vary.
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
