On Freitag, 20. Januar 2012 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > If ease (or cost) of filesystem administration is of that much > greater priority than performance, then why are you using XFS in the > first place instead of EXT? Great experience in recovery of disaster filesystem problems on XFS. A switch to another FS costs a lot of time, and why switch if it works great? And administration comes down to mkfs, mount, maybe xfs_fsr, in disaster xfs_repair, and sometimes xfs_growfs. Basically nothing. Also, this list has been of great help during the years, whenever there were problems they got fixed. That's ease of administration :-) -- mit freundlichen Grüssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services: Protéger http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
