Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5SMt1nC019136
	for <linux-xfs-outgoing@oss.sgi.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:55:01 -0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g5SMt03r019135
	for linux-xfs-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:55:00 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com using -f
Received: from CoNetUX (IDENT:DmyeLw98v1hM0nO14dpQT1SK1vmO6keG@firewall.conet.cz [213.175.54.250])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5SMssnC019102
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:54:55 -0700
Received: from conet.cz (Libor [192.168.1.130])
	by CoNetUX (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5SMwQE03394;
	Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:58:26 +0200
Message-ID: <3D1CE9C1.90108@conet.cz>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:57:05 +0200
From: Libor Vanek <libor@conet.cz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
CC: Stephen Lord <lord@sgi.com>, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS corruption!
References: <3D1CA432.9030904@conet.cz> <1025304829.6674.13.camel@UberGeek>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=PLING,SUPERLONG_LINE version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

>
>
>I'd recommend Reiser before EXT3. Reiser, I've found, is much quicker at
>most things than EXT3, unless you want to some benefits of journaling.
>  
>
As the speed is not the problem (this is fileserver ONLY (no database etc.) and 100 Mbit/s is here the limit) I prefer ext3 because I still don't trust Reiser a lot (there still some "small" bugfixes...).

But what I wanted to say - do you have any numbers? Some Reiser/ext2/ext3/XFS comparison? Or it's just subjective meaning?

Libor