Yes but since these are production machines in a lab that requires

clearance I can't share.  We keep backups around for all these machines

since every now and then we lose one for no good reason.  In contrast

the windows  and openbsd machines we have deployed do not share this

behavior.
You are the one making bold statements based on a non representative

sample.
production server != home computing != desktop
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 05:31:11PM +0100, RedShift wrote:

quoted text
> Marco Peereboom wrote:

> >If you like losing data ext3 and reiserfs work just fine.  I manage to

> >lose Linux installations pretty often by doing crazy things like

> >rebooting.

> >

> >On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:41:05PM +0100, RedShift wrote:

> >>Claudio Jeker wrote:

> >>>On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:

> >>>>On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:36:00PM -0500, R. Fumione wrote:

> >>>>>Hello,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>I am using OpenBSD on server since few years now, and I am very happy

> >>>>>with it's easy maintenance and it's stability. I want to try on

> >>>>>desktop, and I am having trouble.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>Everything is much slower than existing Linux system. For example,

> >>>>>Firefox takes 3-5 seconds to start on Linux but ~10 seconds on

> >>>>>OpenBSD on same machine!

> >>>>I have the same problem. The FFS doesn't seem to be as fast as ext2.

> >>>>

> >>>On the other hand I never lost data on ffs while a crashing linux box

> >>>likes to eat up file systems. If you like to get ext2 speed just mount

> >>>your filesystems async and hope for the best (that's what linux is

> >>>doing).

> >>>

> >>That's what transactional filesystems like ext3 and reiserfs are for. I

> >>can highly recommend reiserfs.

> >>

> >>Glenn

> >>

> >

>

> Do you have some evidence to back up your pretty bold statement?