Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!world!madd From: madd@world.std.com (jim frost) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: AIX vs standard unix Message-ID: <1991Jun8.065413.9622@world.std.com> Date: 8 Jun 91 06:54:13 GMT References: <1991Jun3.173646.25682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <11640@ncar.ucar.edu> <1991Jun4.163505.29244@cs.utk.edu> <30577@hydra.gatech.EDU> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 28 gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >In <1991Jun4.163505.29244@cs.utk.edu> de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) writes: >>In article <11640@ncar.ucar.edu>, pack@acd.uucp (Daniel Packman) writes: >>>I'd take the journaled file system over sys V or berekely any day. >>How about the day one of your disks crashes? >only once have I _ever_ heard a squeaky out of fsck.... >it just doesn't lose stuff. JFS vs UFS: JFS wins hands down. JFS vs FFS: JFS is more reliable, but FFS is faster. The only problem I have with JFS is that it does not deal with fragmentation at all. Given the amount of research that went into filesystems that avoid or eliminate fragmentation, such as FFS or SGI Extents, I was shocked at this deficiency. Rumor has it (rumor from an IBM representative) that IBM is working on it, but it's a glaring problem which IBM has no immediate answer to. As for reliability, I've never lost anything on a JFS partition. Not even stuff that was active when the machine was down. JFS partitions are reliable, no question about it. I'd love to see that kind of reliability on other UNIX machines. jim