-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On January 2, 2002 10:14 pm, Doug McGarrett wrote:

I haven't done it yet, but I would go with ext3 because there is a program that runs in MS Windows that can access ext2, and I have been told that it works with ext3. Many of us will be stuck with MS for a while yet. Program is called called explore2fs. With it, you can access your Linux directory from Windows, copy files, etc. If you don't care, then I have no other recommendation. --doug

You could argue that as a bad thing. Security reasons, y'know? However, ReiserFS is a *far* faster filesystem. Your system's performance will noticeably improve. If accessing the partitions from Windows is important, you can get a program called rfstool at http://p-nand-q.com/reiser4win.htm - -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8NHTv+FOexA3koIgRAurKAKCgHy6+GKincgkf35LrFKdIdQ2sjwCgiZY4 KAB0PYIuubDdH/AyBQj8Eb8= =7f99 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter Nixon wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:12:46 -0400 James Oakley wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On January 2, 2002 10:14 pm, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

I haven't done it yet, but I would go with ext3 because there is a program that runs in MS Windows that can access ext2, and I have been told that it works with ext3. Many of us will be stuck with MS for a while yet. Program is called called explore2fs. With it, you can access your Linux directory from Windows, copy files, etc. If you don't care, then I have no other recommendation. --doug

You could argue that as a bad thing. Security reasons, y'know?

However, ReiserFS is a *far* faster filesystem. Your system's performance will noticeably improve.

If accessing the partitions from Windows is important, you can get a program called rfstool at http://p-nand-q.com/reiser4win.htm

- -- James Oakley

Thanks guys,

I knew about the ext2 windows proggy, and as I said previously I don't run windows... at all... but it's interesting to see that there is now a reiser one also...

I think I will stick with ReiserFS over ext3 for 2 reasons.

a) I have used it extensively and had very little trouble with it. b) I have not heard any reasons NOT to use it..

How about this then. Edit your favorite file with say 'vi'. Make some changes to it and write it back. Then reach over and power off your box. Power up your box and see if you can read your file. At least with ext2/ext3 it's recoverable. With ext2 you may loose your changes but you will get at least the original file back. With ext3 you will even get your changes back. FAR more often than not with reiser you get SH%T back. Even though I do use reiser on almost all my boxes in my opinion it's not the best. Mark

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:12:46 -0400 James Oakley wrote:

However, ReiserFS is a *far* faster filesystem. Your system's performance will noticeably improve.

Yes and no, ReiserFS is only faster than ext3 on small files and slower on large files. That being said there was a thread on the Sylpheed mailing list where several people did tests on large MH style maildirs with both ReiserFS and ext3 and they found: (1) ReiserFS is only faster if the notail option is used. (2) Over time as the file system becomes a bit fragmented, ResierFS became slower that ext3. This has been reported to the developers of ReiserFS. Regards, Charles -- The box saids Windows XP or better, so I installed Linux

The problem I am having with my ext3 / partition is that after an ungraceful shutdown, the ext2fsck runs (this kind of blows the whole reason for a journalling file system). The ext3 driver loads way before this happens, and the other ext3 filesystems just get a journal replay. mg On Thursday 03 January 2002 14:17, Charles Philip Chan wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:42:36 +0200

Peter Nixon wrote:

...

What is the currently recomended filesystem to use with SuSE 7.3? I have been using ReiserFS since SuSE 6.4 with no complaints, and currently have over 50 servers deployed using it (mostly at 7.2 level).

I personally use ext3 due to the maturity of the repair and recovery tools (ie. the same as the ones for ext2). Also if something really goes wrong you can alway mount the patitions as ext2.

Regards, Charles

On Thursday 03 January 2002 23:44, Charles Philip Chan wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:04:06 -0500

mike wrote:

...

The problem I am having with my ext3 / partition is that after an ungraceful shutdown, the ext2fsck runs (this kind of blows the whole reason for a journalling file system). The ext3 driver loads way before this happens, and the other ext3 filesystems just get a journal replay.

I don't have that problem since I compiled jbd and ext3 into my kernel. IIRC (my memory is a bit fuzzy) when I was using modules I had the same problem when using SuSE's mk_initrd with ext3, but the problem went away when I downloaded Redhat's mkinitrd and build an initrd with that instead.

This was also mentioned in the Linux Format review of SuSE 7.3 Pro. http://sdb.suse.de/en/sdb/html/ext3_rootfs_73.html HTH. Regards, Jon