| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Tue, 14 May 2002 19:07:20 +0200 |
| 3 |
Alexander Gretencord <arutha@×××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> There are problems with those too. As said earlier (and Mark mentions |
| 7 |
> it too) ext2 sucks :) I have no personal experience with JFS but the |
| 8 |
> german computer magazine c't tested reiser, ext3, XFS and JFS lately |
| 9 |
> and they had very serious stability problems with JFS. So it's |
| 10 |
> basically ext3 against XFS. One is a very intrusive patch and the |
| 11 |
> other is ext2 + journaling which is fine if you only need a journaling |
| 12 |
> fs and don't care about other deficiencies of ext2. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
For a while (1.0.1-1.0.5 or so) I was testing and packaging JFS for |
| 15 |
redhat-derived systems, and it was snappy and nice, but the fsck tools |
| 16 |
needed some serious work.. and although it worked nicely in most cases |
| 17 |
(had some issues with rejects and all that crap) when the system well |
| 18 |
crapped up and fscked, It worked... until the last time..... then things |
| 19 |
didn't work. at all :p I lost directory contents on my /home (no biiig |
| 20 |
loss since I had backups) and was generally fed up with the small (500 |
| 21 |
Meg) /home partition, so JFS died on my system then.. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
since that time its come further and I'm actually inclined on testing it |
| 24 |
again, though Id need more harddrive space for that... (hint hint ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What I liked about JFS contra XFS was that it wasn't as intrusive as XFS |
| 27 |
.. it was a "nice" patch that touched fewer files and modified less of |
| 28 |
the kernel behaviour. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
//Spider |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
begin .signature |
| 35 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 36 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 37 |
end |
Archives