-none- 2007-10-01 - By Justin Zygmont
Back
Sandor W. Sklar wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Mike Kearey wrote:
>
>> Sandor W. Sklar wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> ext3 is best used on a RHEL4 system because it's what we develop, test
>>>> and support. That is a very important consideration. Note that this
>>>> does
>>>> not mean it's the best one on a technical and theoretical or
>>>> performance
>>>> standpoint.
>>>
>>> That is an interesting point, and one that I didn't consider. All of
>>> our RHEL systems are built from a local Satellite Server, but we have
>>> bought a few "retail" licenses, for the purposes of support. So, can I
>>> take it that you're stating that if we were to have a problem with an
>>> XFS, or Reiser filesystem, and opened a support case with it, we might
>>> experience some issues? That is an important point, so thanks ... that
>>> does help inform our decision.
>>
>> A nice simple way to put it is 'We ship it, we support it'.
>> ext3 is all the things you want IMO :
>>
>> (a) reliability, (b) performance, and (c) ease of administrative tasks.
>> . A couple more (d)Long support cycle (e) a good engineering and
>> maintenance understanding of it from your vendor.
>
> Yes, that all makes sense. It makes even more sense, as I poke around on
> one of my systems, and realize that XFS, and JFS, and ReiserFS are
> nowhere to be found. :-)
>
> That settles my question! Ext3 it is!
I remember benchmarks showing ext3 outperforming most other filesystems
anyways. There was a discussion about that before and the consensus was
toward ext3.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
|
|
