mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
quoted text
>kutcha@eos.acm.rpi.edu (Phillip Rzewski) writes:
>> On a related topic, if I decide to go all 213 megs Linux, I'll still
>> have some space left over on my other hard drive (the 55 megs I'm
>> using now). Would you suggest going extfs with that too, or keeping
>> some as the old style? Reasons?

quoted text
>I've only been using Linux for two days.  I've installed it on a 300MB
>"extended" partition.  Half of one of those days was spent reinstalling
>after it barfed on my disk.

quoted text
>If you don't *need* extfs, and don't mind short file names, I would
>recommend not using it for now.


I have been using the Extended filesystem since kernel version 0.96c
allowed them to be mounted as the root filesystem... (this was extfs
ALPHA v6) and since that time, I have *NEVER* had a single problem
with an extended filesystem that was not *DIRECTLY* the fault of my
own stupidity or power failure.  (ie, reboot w/o sync, etc)

The extended filesystem as it is, has been very stable for me over the
last 6 months.  However, there is a newer version of the extfs that will
reportedly use bitmaps instead of linked-lists for a large increase in speed.

The author doesn't want to guarantee backwards compatiblity with this
extended filesystem... thus he is reluctant to call it 'beta' even though
it is much more stable (IMHO) than any 'Alpha' status program.

I would suggest that you partition your drive in such a manner that you
can tar or zip up one entire partition to another to replace/upgrade
the filesystems as needed... 

-- 
Jeff-Randall@uiuc.edu (ASCII mail)           THIS IS _NOT_ CCSO'S OPINION!!!
jar42733@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (NeXT mail)      If It were, It would've had a
wi.6580@n7kbt.rain.com (anon)                  more important name on it. =)