Re: Relative merits of various file systems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.

 


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux