From: "Geo." 

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> > 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.

the filesystem that was suggested was ext2, that was what I was disagreeing
with, not RFS or XFS or JFS but ext2.

Geo.

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