Re: ext3 vs reiserfs
From: Ed Wilts (ewilts_at_ewilts.org)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:33:25 -0500 To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list <email@example.com>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 01:13:10PM -1000, Alvarez, Angelo CIV NAVPACMETOCCEN JTWC wrote:
> I have 2 partitions that are 1.4 TB and was wondering whether it would be better to use reiserfs instead of ext3.
You'll get better performance with ext3 on a 2.6 kernel than on a 2.4
kernel, and you'll get a long-term support path. resierfs is a dead-end
product with the original developer already focusing on a new
content-addressable file system. With ext3, you're pretty safe in
betting that 5 years from now you'll still be able to read your original
file systems without having to backup/restore the whole shot.
With RHEL 3 or 4, the answer is even more obvious - reiserfs is not
supported at all. It breaks and you get to keep both pieces.
-- Ed Wilts, RHCE Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list