kris buggenhout wrote:
> ok for casual usage and not too big a fs, but when it tends to grow
> ext3 has a lot of problems.
I've had a 100GB Ext3 volume for almost 15 months no. 0 issues.
Now that's running on kernel 2.2.16 using full data journaling,
something that has changed with 2.4 -- where the VM system has
changed to the point where full data journaling is not implemented
as the simple "double buffer" it was on 2.2 -- but it's still nice
to be able to drop down to an Ext2 fsck if you ever get into
> I am not talking of the jfs they have out, Enterprise storage manager is
> built on lvm and jfs from AIX.. this has not yet been released into OSS,
> but will be.
Well that's good news. I'm curious as to why IBM didn't do this in
the first place. Is it non-IBM licensed code that they must replace
before they do?
> If You have tens or hundreds of servers already with volume manager and
> Vxfs, the ability to have low cost servers on low cost hardware have the
> same ... this will let it have momentum in the corporate world.
I don't disagree with you there.
> Samba ? wine ... bochs ... ? IMHO it wont be easy, but it's certainly
> not undo-able...
As someone who was involved with FreeDOS, it is a very, very
frustrating and slow development process to reverse engineer, bug
> This is why I am so involved in using XFS ....
Me too. I trust XFS more than Ext2/Ext3 on kernel 2.4.
Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx chat:thebs413
Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com