On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 23:38, David Sudjiman wrote: > > I'm about to replace my NT2000 data center to RH9 (not yet, still DL-ing). I > read about ext3 vs reiserfs but still can't make up my mind on which one I > should use? All I care is about data safety not performance since this will > not act as a networked data center. If reliability is what you need, and you don't have special performance requirements, then stay with Ext3. Maybe, just maybe, if you really have to avoid data loss and you don't mind the performance penalty, you may want to experiment with "data=journal". OTOH, on the same hardware, running the same software (busy logging database) and under the same conditions (traffic, etc.), i've seen the machine choking to death when running Ext3 (couldn't handle load), yet going on just fine (albeit slow and very busy, but still alive) when running XFS. As for ReiserFS... it's good for stuff that deals with lots of tiny files, such as a news spool or a proxy cache. It's not the best choice for database servers and such. YMMV -- Florin Andrei "CSS is a sort of electronic-thought policeman that comes home with you and works for the media owner. It controls what you can do in your living room with a DVD that you've paid for. It prevents many legitimate uses in the name of stopping one illegitimate use." - Bruce Perens
