SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

December 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Brent L. Bates" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Brent L. Bates
Date:
Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:54:02 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
     I say HOGWASH to Michael Mansour.  SGI's XFS is know for BOTH SPEED AND
RELIABILITY!  I would not use any other file system, no matter what the
file/partition size, except XFS.  I demand dependability and reliability of
the file system and I get that and more from XFS.  XFS has been around a lot
longer than ext3 and is a mature and reliable file system with over a decade
of testing and extended use from desktop machines to massive file servers.  If
you want dependability, reliability, and speed, go with XFS.
     I've had removable media corrupted by a hardware failure on one MO drive
and on a working drive I was able to salvage all the information.  XFS managed
to recover everything.  I thought for sure I was going to loose all the
information, but I didn't.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2