Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Apr 2006 21:56 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 117069
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Considering everything I've heard about ReiserFS track performance when it comes to corrupting data I would never use it. XFS is faster than Ext3, and I would choose it over Ext3 any day.
Intresting that he points out that JFS uses less CPU, might matter for some environments I suppose but not to me.
I would definitly go with XFS.




Member since:
2006-01-07
Very good article! After reading it, and the (very informative) readers' comments, it looks like the two best choices would be either ext3 (for reliability and recovery) or XFS (also very reliable, and fast). A lot of readers seem to think that reiserfs may not be reliable after a power failure. Hard to decide, but the author clearly believes that XFS is best overall. I've never used it, but I will have to give it a try.