Hi Brent,

> Michael Mansour, cut the CRAP/FUD out!  I would NOT depend on 

Hmm.. 

> 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,

If XFS was that reliable then Red Hat would support it commercially. They do
not specifically because ext3 is more reliable and robust.

Red Hat = Scientific Linux, so if it's not supported by TUV then it's not
supported by SL.

Don't believe me, raise a case with Red Hat and see.

>  dependable, and robust file system out there and independent tests 
> have consistently shown it to be much faster than ext3.  It has far 

Please read my first email, ext3 can perform just as fast with various
features turned off.

> 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.

Different people will give the same arguments as you do. The fact is ext3 is
slower than XFS because it has more redundancy built in, turn off the
redundancy features and you get the same speeds as XFS.

Regards,

Michael.