From: "Joe Barr" 


Who suggested ext2?



On Sat, 10 May 2003 11:56:44 -0400, Geo. wrote:

> "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