From: "Robert Comer" 

>   Do you think that redhat is picking a bad default and that there are no
reasons they selected this?<

I don't really know enough to say at this point, I'd certainly like to hear
their side of why use ext3 over one of the other FS's. Red Hat's not one of
my more favorite distributions at this point so I haven't followed them
very closely.

- Bob Comer



"Rich"  wrote in message news:3ebd5152{at}w3.nls.net...
   Do you think that redhat is picking a bad default and that there are no
reasons they selected this?

Rich

  "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:3ebd42c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  >   I think it is significant to note that a clean install of redhat 9
will
  use ext3.  If people think that this is wrong they should ask redhat.<

  As a default, yes, you can change it if you so choose.

  - Bob Comer

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3ebd3d47{at}w3.nls.net...
     I think it is significant to note that a clean install of redhat 9 will
  use ext3.  If people think that this is wrong they should ask redhat.

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net...
    "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