Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:26:07 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: common filesystem for Linux and FreeBSD Message-ID: <20071218112607.GA43092@demeter.hydra> In-Reply-To: <fk863c$to3$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20071217063559.GB33846@demeter.hydra> <fk5g4r$682$1@ger.gmane.org> <20071218050403.GA41080@demeter.hydra> <fk863c$to3$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:06:30AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:39:31AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> Chad Perrin wrote: > >> > >>> That being the case, there is some data I would like to keep available to > >>> both FreeBSD and Linux systems, in stable read/write access with > >>> reasonably high access performance for both (fast enough to achieve > >>> decent frame rates, for instance). This seems to rule out both ext3 and > >>> UFS2. What filesystem(s) meet(s) my needs in this case? > >> Since you didn't state anything about reliability, ext2 will maybe help > >> you :) > > > > I thought "stable" covered that. > > ext2fs is "stable" in the sense that there are no known bugs, and it's > 100% compatible with Linux. It "just works". > > Unless you get frequent power outages or similar "hard" errors, the lack > of journaling shouldn't bother you much. Ah, I understand your meaning now. I thought you meant reliable operation, and you just meant to refer to the fault-tolerance of the filesystem itself. Much clearer now. Thanks. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071218112607.GA43092>