Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f6EFsS426394 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:54:28 -0700 Received: from smtp9.xs4all.nl (smtp9.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.135]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f6EFsPV26370 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:54:25 -0700 Received: from xs3.xs4all.nl (xs3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.44]) by smtp9.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03938; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:54:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (knuffie@localhost) by xs3.xs4all.nl (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA21640; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:54:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:54:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Seth Mos To: Xuan Baldauf cc: Federico Sevilla III , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks In-Reply-To: <3B5023C6.5A6333BC@baldauf.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote: > Federico Sevilla III wrote: > > For your Squid cache, don't go XFS, but instead go ReiserFS. It will do a great > > job there. For your Samba or NFS partition, go XFS and not ReiserFS. > > I do not use XFS, currently. Why is XFS better for Samba? Because word documents average 0.1 - 1MB. > > Aside from > > the fact that ReiserFS is having problems with NFS (and SFS which runs on top > > of NFS), > > NFS has problems with ReiserFS (NFS has design bugs which do not seem to matter on > other filesystems). Dare to say that it was designed for Unix like file systems with inodes? Cheers Seth