On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Richard Troy wrote: > ANYWAY... I'm using Linux for business these days and I like it a lot but > want a better file system. I've heard of quite a few new ones - new to me > anyway - and when I asked about it, nobody really replied with the kind of > response I was hoping for. Ext2 is all I've got working. I ran into a > mountain of hassle with ext3 - I just don't have time for crap that > doesn't work. I've learned from this list that ext3 works fine and it was > an installation or upgrade problem, but that doesn't tell me _anything_ > about why I might want ext3. ...That's part of why I never followed > through on those installation and upgrade problems - no motive. Another > thing I was asking about I never heard anything about was the how/where > question - I only picked up that ext3 comes with RH7.x - and I already > knew that... Well, ext3 will give you the filesystem integrity you want. It also has the plus point that with the default "data=ordered" mode you don't get garbage data in your open files. Stephen can explain the benefits of data=journal because I'm actually not sure I understand what that gives you that "ordered" doesn't (except possibly some performance difference when typing "sync"). > Anybody want to give this a try? I think it'd be a real service. Maybe > just reply with a summary of your personal favorite? My first post in this very thread, I believe, was a reasonable list of what's out there, but no table. I'll leave recommendations, but I'll stand by my assertion that the best way to be sure is test them with *your* workload to see what you prefer in terms of performance for different tasks (each fs has strengths and weaknesses). > Thanks much, > Richard > >
