From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tyler Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison? Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:10:55 -0700 Message-ID: <432A37BF.7060305@dtbb.net> References: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: ewan.grantham@gmail.com Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools. Regards, Tyler. Ewan Grantham wrote: >I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was >prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the >filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about >ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough >to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go? > >Any thoughts? >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 9/15/2005