Relative merits of various file systems
Scot L. Harris
webid at cfl.rr.com
Fri Aug 12 01:45:20 UTC 2005
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 at sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >>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.
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list