SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

February 2009

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

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

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:50:49 -0500
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
"Brent L. Bates" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject:
From:
"Brent L. Bates" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Michael Mansour <[log in to unmask]> <"Re: AFS on XFS or ext3?"@fnal.gov>
Organization:
ViGYAN, Inc.
Comments:
To: Scientific Linux Users mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (9 lines)
     Michael Mansour, cut the CRAP/FUD out!  I would NOT depend on ext3 if I
CARED about what was stored on my disks.  I ONLY use ext3 if the data stored
is NOT of "very high importance".  I use XFS when I DO CARE, so I use it all
the time.  XFS is the most reliable, dependable, and robust file system out
there and independent tests have consistently shown it to be much faster than
ext3.  It has far more YEARS and Pentabytes of service under it's belt than
ext3, a LOT more!  I've had XFS do a much better job of surviving system
crashes and disk failures than ext3.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2