On Saturday 31 Jul 2004 23:38 pm, doc wrote: <SNIP>
I am hardly an authority, just a user with two bad experiences with ReiserFS.
I had a problem on a desktop and it was near impossible to recover from it due to ReiserFS so when I reloaded Suse 9.1 I selected Ext3 instead -- same a couple of days ago on my notebook.
If you read the description of the strengths and weaknesses of the different filesystems by Suse recovery is a weak spot for ReiserFS and a strength of Ext3 -- and for most users I see little advantage for selecting ReiserFS over Ext3.
I have to aggree - the maintenance tools for reiser are nowhere near as developed as those for ext3. What is more, ext3 can be accessed and maintained as ext2 is necessary, so there is absolutely no need for extra modules and tools on recovery disks. IMHO of there is no pressing reason to use reiser (or any other fs) then ext2/3 seems the best choice from a maturity and nativeness POV. Dylan -- "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -Dark Helmet