Hi Brent,

> 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.

Just for the record, my information comes from Red Hat themselves, it is the
reason why they only support ext3 commercially and not XFS.

I'm an XFS supporter myself and use it on my production systems, but if you
were to ask the question "why isn't XFS supported by Red Hat", my response in
an email earlier will be the reason they'll give.

Although I have had no issues with running XFS (and you too obviously), I
presume they have the resources, the clients, the test beds and the know-how
which far exceeds my own environment and yours. I'd also presume they've seen
worse disasters in environments than you or I have seen in our own.

Regards,

Michael.