On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 13:58 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Some people recommend ext3 for the system and xfs for home. I like reiserfs, but I have been bitten before...
Again, my professional opinion continues to be that SuSE has the best ReiserFS implementation out there -- especially when it comes to syncing up the off-line tools with the kernel. I don't want to speak too negatively in that regard, as some people have been running ReiserFS without issue. But in other regards, ReiserFS non-traditional design continues to show various compatibility issues with various, standard Linux kernel interfaces and support. Hence why it's a non-option for many people, including myself. I've been shy to deploy XFS the last few years. In the "good 'ole days" of SGI releasing official XFS packages and 2.4 kernels for Red Hat Linux 7.3 and 9, I could trust it explicitly. Unfortunately, the stock kernel implementation of XFS in 2.6 hasn't been nearly as solid -- unless you yank out select releases from SGI's own CVS repository. And forget the 2.4 backport, it was a "bad idea" IMHO. Now there are people on the SGI XFS list that like SuSE's stock XFS implementation. And there are others that balk at it. With the limitations of Ext3 that are an increasing issue, I sure wish Red Hat would put its efforts into supporting XFS as its enterprise filesystem. Until then, I'm solely Ext3 on RHEL and SLES. And that means I'm actually recommending and deploying Solaris/Opteron, instead of RHEL or SLES/Opteron, when it comes to enterprise file server duties. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own