Sandor W. Sklar wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Mike Kearey wrote:
Sandor W. Sklar wrote:
<snip>
ext3 is best used on a RHEL4 system because it's what we develop, test
and support. That is a very important consideration. Note that this
does
not mean it's the best one on a technical and theoretical or
performance
standpoint.
That is an interesting point, and one that I didn't consider. All of
our RHEL systems are built from a local Satellite Server, but we have
bought a few "retail" licenses, for the purposes of support. So, can I
take it that you're stating that if we were to have a problem with an
XFS, or Reiser filesystem, and opened a support case with it, we might
experience some issues? That is an important point, so thanks ... that
does help inform our decision.
A nice simple way to put it is 'We ship it, we support it'.
ext3 is all the things you want IMO :
(a) reliability, (b) performance, and (c) ease of administrative tasks.
. A couple more (d)Long support cycle (e) a good engineering and
maintenance understanding of it from your vendor.
Yes, that all makes sense. It makes even more sense, as I poke around on
one of my systems, and realize that XFS, and JFS, and ReiserFS are
nowhere to be found. :-)
That settles my question! Ext3 it is!
I remember benchmarks showing ext3 outperforming most other filesystems
anyways. There was a discussion about that before and the consensus was
toward ext3.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
