To put it briefly: If it don't need breakin', don't fix it.
There's no compelling reason to go to XFS, or JFS, or Reiserfs. If ext3 works for you, use it. I've found problems with each of the other fs types, on "some" machines. ext3 is stable. JMHO-YMMV Ric On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:34:00AM -0500, Chinmay Nadkarni wrote: > General purpose use really, web surfing, email, and some programming > occasionally. > > Let me put it this way ... is there any compelling reason (such as a > large performance differential) to choose xfs over ext3, given that I > have been using ext3 trouble-free for the last year and a half. > > Thanks. > - Chinmay. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Depends what you are doing, for general purpose use of the laptop like > >an end-user sort of thing, ext3 should be good enough. > > > >On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 11:40, Chinmay Nadkarni wrote: > > > > > >>I wanted to get some opinions on XFS versus ext3. I am currently running > >>ext3 (RH 7.2), but I was wondering whether it might make sense to run > >>xfs on a laptop I am going to be installing RH 8.0 on, since it seems to > >>have better performane characteristics. Any opinions, gotchas, ... > >> > >>Thanks in advance. > >>- Chinmay. > >> > >> > > -- > Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. > Experience the convenience of buying online with [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://shopnow.netscape.com/ > > > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- Ric Tibbetts Linux registration number: 55684 If you want to help advertise Linux - point your friends to http://counter.li.org/ -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
