From: "Robert Comer" 

> I think....that Suse goes for Reiser FS by default. I am unsure wrt
> Mandrake because I like ReiserFS because I've always used it & I'm
> conservative. However I think our techie recomend wrt running big oracle
> instances was XFS.

The latest mandrake uses ext3. (I also like RFS so I change the default.)

- Bob Comer


"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3ebf6903$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Geo. wrote:
> > "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> > news:3ebe89f7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> >
> >>IMHO yes it's common. I have seen a number of Linux servers in
> >>production & they all used a JFS of which RFS & XFS
seem in my non
> >>scientific sample to be the most common. OK only a % of those are/were
> >>RH.
> >
> >
> > That last part is very important since it's RH who picked ext3 as the
> > default. Other distribs probably pick other defaults, no?
> >
>
> I think....that Suse goes for Reiser FS by default. I am unsure wrt
> Mandrake because I like ReiserFS because I've always used it & I'm
> conservative. However I think our techie recomend wrt running big oracle
> instances was XFS.
>
> >
> >
> >>Suse is quite common over here & I am not sure what the Suse default
> >>is (I think it may be RFS). Most of the people looking after Linux boxes
> >>tend to be ex-Unix admins so they might be going for JFS or XFS because
> >>of prior experience.
> >
> >
> > Or because some app requires it for compatibility? Someone mentioned
that in
> > another post and I was wondering how common it is to pick a filesystem
> > because an app requires it. That's a problem I've never run into on NT,
NTFS
> > was as backwards compatible with FAT as NT was (if it didn't work it
most
> > likely was NT not the file system).
> >
>
> I've never ever run into this. Most OS'es have abstraction layers such
> that the app just goes "write to
/home/adam/mydir/myfile.txt" & doesn't
> give a monkey's about the actual FS underlying it.
>
>
> >
> >>In fact I would go slightly further wrt SAMBA. I would get a number of
> >>exactly the same machines & give one to MS people, one to RH, one to
> >>Suse etc & possibly one to a bunch from a BSD. Give em a
simple "make it
> >>go as fast as possible wrt samba, the choices are yours"
(e.g. wrt fs
> >>etc) & then chart the results. If there are any commercial
x86 Unix'es
> >>who want in then let them have a box too (e.g. SCO or Solaris on x86).
> >
> >
> > You can't do that for one reason, I could pick hardware that works
better
> > with one than with all the rest. That was the reason I said use a bug
> > testing lab, because it doesn't matter how a particular setup works,
what
> > matters is how the OS works across a range of different hardware
> > configurations that you are likely to find in general use.
> >
>
> Maybe but in the interests of equality of hardware then all must be
> tested on the same kit.
>
> >
> >>If it runs on all of them pace Win2K3 then let's see coz given the samba
> >>code should be the same on all the *ix'es then you'd be able to get an
> >>average for the SAMBA systems (vs Win2K3) as well as a per OS/distrib
> >
> > view.
> >
> > Ok, I see what you are saying, but are you going to allow MS to choose
the
> > hardware platform you test on? 
> >
>
> If they paid then they'd choose. However To make the test "relevant"
> they'd have to use a major vendor std server. e.g. if Win2K3 supported
> Dec...Compaq....HP Alpha CPU then there'd be no real point in doing
> Alpha tests coz....etc.etc.
>
> >>That would be usefull for all who are considering serving files using an
> >>X86 box & not just derided as marketing fluff.
> >
> >
> > that depends on how it's done, you could run a test like that and still
have
> > it considered to be slanted for a marketing pitch of one of the
products.
> >
>
> Not if the various team from the OS distributors each got a machine &
> they were happy with the kit on board.
>
> Adam
>

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