[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [suse-security] Filesystem choice in secure server installati on



> SuSE linux admin guide for 8.2 (pdf version page 498

Means it's in 8.2. I'm certain it was at least in 8.1 as well. That
manual might not have been updated as fast as the distro.

> Since Ext3 can take care of metadata and data itself becomes a winner.

I wouldn't be so fast with that conclusion. How much added data security
do ordered writes really provide? What's the performance loss (there has
to be one)? If ext3 with data journalling becomes unusably slow it's not
a good choice for a server. Use raid 5 instead. Reiserfs does provide
the speed.

> I've read that ext3 (since it's based on ext2) has been in existence
> longer than the other filesystems

Not sure, but I suspect it's propaganda. Reiserfs has been usable and
reliable on 2.2.x when ext3 was only a test case unsuitable for
production. There was reiser from SuSE but not ext3, wonder why. Of
course, the fact that reiser was the first available and usable
journalling fs for Linux doesn't mean it's still the best now.

> so it has been more thoroughly stress tested.

Is this really a plus? Any seriously-sized filesystem extension can
screw the lot. Relevant is the total test time of the extension.

One has to admire the reiser team though. They have created a new fs
from scratch, proving that the deployed technology (contrary to
prevailing opinion) not only works but is also fast. Xfs and jfs are
adaptations of existing fs to Linux done by companies with oodles of
cash. Ext3 was slow off the ground and has probably had more developers
than reiser ever had.

Volker

-- 
Volker Kuhlmann			is possibly list0570 with the domain in header
http://volker.dnsalias.net/		Please do not CC list postings to me.

-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@xxxxxxxx
Security-related bug reports go to security@xxxxxxx, not here