On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:05:57PM -0700, David Talkington wrote: > >Yes I realise that, and I know some of the reasons why RedHat prefers us > >to use ext3. > > If someone can smack me with a link to an exposition of the above, I'd > be interested in the discussion. Thank you -d
I don't know of any links now, but I recall from different separate emails in the past that the 2 main reasons for preferring ext3 over ReiserFS are: 1. Stability: ext3 is built on top of the proven and reliable ext2. On the other hand, ReiserFS has had data corruption or loss in the past. This afternoon, my colleague at work told me how he lost some data to it. It is quite stable now, but it did have issues. 2. Easy upgrade path: Upgrading from ext2 to ext3 is so easy that it almost sounds too good to be true, but it is true. This offers an easy upgrade path for users of older RedHat systems, since they don't have to backup and restore data. I just found this on Google, which supports my above comments: http://www.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/2001-October/002090.html ReiserFS certainly has some advantages over ext3, and I'm pointing it out to stop a debate flaring up. Let's come back to my original question: How can I install a system with ReiserFS partitions only? Any RedHat engineers out there who want to answer? -- Anand Buddhdev Personal site: http://anand.org _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
