[NTLUG:Discuss] [Bulk] Re: ext3 waste disk spaces then Windows ME?

[John Jeffers]

At 06:19 AM 30-04-06, you wrote:
>On 4/29/06, Chris Cox <cjcox at acm.org> wrote:
> > Terry wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > Until such time as someone convences me that ReiserFS is as reliable
> > > and problem free as ext3 I'm sticking with tried and proven ext3.
> > > (Hard drives are cheap, I'm not all that concerned about wasting 5%).
> >
> > And who proved that ext3 was reliable?  Sorry... but the logic
> > is nonsense.

Actually someone has done some research.......

Distrowatch Weekly 24 April

Debian:

"Do you also hesitate every time you need to choose a journalled file 
system while installing a Linux distribution? If so, you might find 
it interesting to read the 
<http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388>File system 
comparison on Debian 'etch', as published by 
<http://www.debian-administration.org/>Debian-Administration.org. In 
it, Hans Ivers provides a number of benchmarks to evaluate the 
performance on ext3, JFS, ReiserFS and XFS file systems. And the 
winner? Perhaps surprisingly, it's the less well-known and relatively 
rarely used XFS: "While recognizing the relative merits of each file 
system, a system administrator has no choice but to install only one 
file system on his servers. Based on all testing done for this 
benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most appropriate file system 
to install on a file server for home or small-business needs." Read 
the full <http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388>article here. "

Cheers John