From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:

>>RAID 0 wasn't the only poor choice for Linux in the tests.
"They used ext3,
>
> which is one of the slowest filesystems on Linux," <
>
> I can't agree on this point, ext2 isn't suitable since it's so easy to wipe
> out with a simple power failure. In a fileserver you have to be able to
> count
> on the file system coming back up after a hard poweroff. Fileservers are
> where everyone stores their data, the file system is critical. ext3 is the
> only choice.
>

Why? I've tried (on a variety of work PC'es) the other 3 jfs'es & we did
  "turn off while buzy" tests. ReiserFS, XFS & IBM JFS all seemed to
handle it fine. I think (but I'd have to check our test docs) that for us
on that machinery XFS was the fastest.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4