On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 21:21, Mike McCarty wrote: > Thomas Springer wrote: > > === Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:37:38 -0500 > > === Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>Anyone have a relative strengths/weaknesses of various file > >>systems commonly used with Linux? I have some feel for > >>ext2 and ext3 (I use ext3) and am more knowledgeable about > >>FAT12/16/32 than I really want to be. But how about reiser? > >>I also see others mentioned from time to time. How do > >>extended attributes fit in? > >> > >>Mike > > > > > > Don't miss: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems > > > > > > Thomas > > > That looks *PERFECT*! One thing you should look at is the tools used to recover each file system type if/when something goes wrong. I have read that tools to work with reiserfs may be lacking compared to ext3. I am also not sure if reiserfs supports selinux type acls. Please correct me if I have this wrong. :) I have used primarily ext3 on all the systems I have put together. I have used xfs in one application, a mythtv box, which has been working just fine.
