On 18 Apr 2002, Florin Andrei wrote: > 3. XFS > This is interesting, because the XFS code base is actually very mature > and stable. That's why, i guess, the Linux port became stable so > quickly: because only the Linux "hooks" had to be made stable, while the > core was already mature. xfs is still battling corruption problems, and there is still the "nulls in files" problem. while xfs core code may be mature the linux port is not. i wouldn't suggest it for any production systems at the moment. (i had big problems with xfs on several production machines) ext3 doesn't have the nulls-in-files problem due to the way it journals, and I never had it happen on reiserfs (although it may be possible with reiserfs, i don't know). also the fact you can't fsck a readonly mounted xfs filesystem is a downer. neither ext(2|3) or reiserfs have this problem. it is unique to xfs. i haven't played with jfs at all, afaik it is the most recent of the bunch. it has interesting features but it seems both xfs and reiser are considerably more advanced and tested. at the moment i would recommend reiserfs over xfs. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
