Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 19:55 -0400, Bryan S. Tyson wrote:
If XFS needs dual power supplies and dual UPSs, what huge advantage does it have that makes it worth putting up with this?
In addition to many feature and scalability benefits, it is a traditional UNIX filesystem design and doesn't require a lot of the "hacks" that non-UNIX filesystem designs like ReiserFS requires.
E.g., there's a reason why Red Hat doesn't support ReiserFS -- a good segment of their enterprise clientel needs reliable NFS services. NFS shares on ReiserFS continues to be a major PITA, support-wise.
Now I just wish Red Hat would support XFS, because Ext3 has a lot of scalability issues (before we start looking at features).
I have found on my desktop system that copying DVD video files is relatively fast with the new filesystem. Also large program files seem to load faster than they did under my old set up with Suse 10 and reiserFS. It will be a few weeks before I have a really good sense of how significant these differences are. I have found that coping large DVD files under Suse and K3b is faster than comparable Windows programs possibly due to less system overhead and a more efficient cache set up with K3b. Thanks Ralph Ellis