On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, james rich wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Luigi Genoni wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
> >
> > > So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
> > > for instance), and even if it is less robust (I don't know if it is, I
> > It is not less complete nor less robust, it's a different technology and a
> > totally different approach.
> > Remember XFS was designed thinking to a kind of HW totally different from
> > PC, and so was for jfs. But somehow JFS is a better choice if you
> > do not have the last fastest CPU, and the last fastest scsi disk.
>
> This is simply not true. I run xfs on three systems - none of which have
> anything close to the latest cpu. Each system runs faster after
> installing xfs. Since linux-kernel is not the place for advocacy I
> suggest a comparison be for your particular setup to determine which is
> best for you.
Please,
I was not making any advocacy. I was saying that there are two different
approach, and incidentally refered my own experience. Then, telling
about jfs to be light, I was not
saying XFS is slow! probably my english was not good enought
to express my thought.
Luigi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:21 EST