LFS Paper on Secure Servers

Daniel Roethlisberger daniel at roe.ch
Mon May 10 12:33:40 PDT 2004

Ricardo Barberis <ricardo at dattatec.com> [2004-05-10/16:20]:
> El Lunes 03 Mayo 2004 05:50, Bostjan Skufca (at) domenca.si escribió:
> > I (personally of course) prefer reiserfs (v3) to ext3 as it feels
> > more robust and I (personally and at a company) never had problems
> > with it.
> [...] But I agree with you about its performance and robustness.

Performance: yes. Robustness: no, absolutely not. You can hose the whole
filesystem with some smallish hard drive damages with reiser if it hits
the data structures at an unfortunate place, while ext3 is a lot more
robust when it comes to hardware failures, because there are less single
points of failure in the way the filesystem is organized.

But this is becoming increasingly off-topic for this list.


Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel at roe.ch>
GnuPG key ID 0x804A06B1 (DSA/ElGamal)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-security/attachments/20040510/31830f28/attachment.sig>

More information about the lfs-security mailing list