Why Redhat Choose ext3 For 7.2

mz001b writes "There is an interesting article from RH posted on LinuxToday discussing why they chose ext3 over the other available journaling filesystems (ReiserFS, xfs, jfs,...) for RH 7.2"

Comments

Who out there has actually done real research?

[bconway]

I've worked with ext2, ext3, and ReiserFS extensively, and I can say I've had vastly different results than what many people have _read and repeated_ here. Ext2 is a nice filesystem, assuming you don't have to worry about an unclean shutdown. I can't count the number of times I've lost a filesystem entirely because it was ACTUALLY doing something when the power was lost, or just 2.4's bad VM sending the machine into oblivion and the filesystem with it. Ext3 was nice when I used it once or twice, until I turned DMA on for the disk, at which point it started corrupting itself quite nicely (not a hardware issue, trust me). I would hope this is fixed by now, but I always found it to be a nice feature. ReiserFS, but comparison, has never failed me. I've used it extensively on production machines under 2.2 and 2.4, and been using knfsd since 2.4.6 was released (damn ext2 hooks in the code, completely ridiculous). Obviously, you should find what suits your needs best, but some of the flaming and outright incorrect claims I've seen recently are just ridiculous. See what works for you, not just what RedHat tells you. I remember when Linux was about choice, not about RedHat telling me that I shouldn't use a certain filesystem on my machine and not giving me the CHOICE of doing so.