Fred i fully agree with you.
But attaching 200gb drive as local to linux box is what causeing problem
insted we use fileserver from emc which canbe used as local drive (they
call it symmetrix) apart from os which is conncted to scsi on your server.
Emc will have it's own micro kernel that take care of file system intigrity
so you don't have worry about fs on it .
This what is @ my work.
probelm with raiser fs Acl's arn't ready nor attributes (may be i don't
know) also many linux native backup crips on raiserfs (Dump & rstore).
>
>
> My original argument with "RaghuNath L" was that mounting a ResierFS FS
> after a crash faster than an ext2fs FS after a crash was not the only
> benefit. Also I argued that it is recommended for production
> environments; of course, this is relative to your needs. No given
> product is recommended for _every_ production environment, but the
> original implication was that ReiserFS shouldn't be used in _any_
> production environment, with which I disagreed.
>
> We are presently expoloring changing a 100GB file server to ReiserFS.
> This server has _never_ crashed, _never_ been hacked, _never_ had a
> hardware failure, and it's UPS has _never_ failed either. But one day,
> something will go wrong. Clients are much more understanding of a 10
> minute outage than a 60 minute one :-)
>
> -Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
--
Regards ph:5099025
RaghuNath L pager:9624395369
WSS-Team,Texas Instruments India.
You have to live on the edge of reality -
to make your dreams come true!!!
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
