From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C316EF.269F3A30
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.



------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C316EF.269F3A30
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Do you
think that redhat =
is picking a=20
bad default and that there are no reasons they selected =
this?
 
Rich
 

  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message news:3ebd42c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...>  =20
  I think it is significant to note that a clean install of redhat 9 =
willuse=20
  ext3.  If people think that this is wrong they should ask=20
  redhat.<As a default, yes, you can change it
if you so=20
  choose.- Bob
Comer"Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message news:3ebd3d47{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  I think it is significant to note that a clean install of redhat 9 =
willuse=20
  ext3.  If people think that this is wrong they should ask=20
  redhat.Rich 
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;=20
  "Adam Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>
= wrote in=20
  message  news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  > > I can't agree on this point, ext2 isn't suitable since it's =
so easy=20
  to  wipe  > > out
with a simple power failure. =
In a=20
  fileserver you have to be ableto  > > =
count  >=20
  > on the file system coming back up after a hard poweroff.=20
  Fileserversare  > > where
everyone stores their =
data, the=20
  file system is critical. ext3 is 
the  > > =
only=20
  choice.  > > 
>  > Why? I've =
tried (on=20
  a variety of work PC'es) the other 3 jfs'es & we did =20
  >   "turn off while buzy" tests.
ReiserFS, XFS & IBM =
JFS all=20
  seemed to  > handle it fine. I think (but I'd have to =
check our=20
  test docs) that for  > us on that machinery XFS
was the=20
  fastest.  the filesystem that was suggested
was ext2, =
that was=20
  what I wasdisagreeing  with, not RFS or XFS
or JFS but=20
  ext2. 
Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_0122_01C316EF.269F3A30--

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