Christopher Browne wrote:
> The best performance results I have seen on Linux systems have
> involved the use of JFS. I found XFS to be a little slower, and it
> has the distinct demerit that it is not in the 'official' kernel tree
> yet, thereby meaning that you have to get into the pain of managing
> heavily-patched kernels. The "kernel management" issue strikes me as
> being a much bigger deal than the relatively minor performance
> difference.
Thank you for your answer (it's still me, now I'm using my "official"
usenet account :))
Kernel management is not an issue for me because recent SuSE 2.4.x
kernels already include XFS support by default.
What worries me is stability and tolerance to power failures and other
"bad treatments". I have EXT2 here and I'm happy with it but since the
servers would be located in client shops I wish to have something that
doesn't need "human" input in such cases. Have you experienced (or
heard) horror stories about XFS, expecially related to postgresql? Do
you think JFS is better than XFS in this field too?
Thanks again. Kind regards,
--
Cris Carampa (spamto:cris119@operamail.com)
"Poveri fanatici comunisti, noglobal e affetti dalla sindrome
anti-microsoft" (gli utenti Linux secondo un poster di ICOD)
