From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RAwan-0003uf-0L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:26:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA3C921C11D; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 04:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3220621C0A4 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 04:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so184846bkb.40 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:25:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7EOcqEFAYibQ7gTLR71OnNnSHc/t580AZb7Of0FsPSY=; b=B3DBZGpl4Mh+ETaR9yt52EZHCt69NY29B6QAVMu30bGPM4fheQTGIfDfag9aqWzk1Q aYDRcVuRRVnWFfxhykX+SvlIpkmpWjMwokUf2zkYKxFRGJmavKvuQ0uf2u1pmTwcIwnm oX/+fyStH4O7NNvVniDBpMMUhAkRbrO3V5llQ= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.136.71 with SMTP id q7mr379625bkt.77.1317702321188; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.177.199 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:25:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:25:21 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] What is the most error resistant filesystem? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: c8f31fb57bcacff00a6e64d8c09e5c06 On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > Hello people! > > Now, I have the same question as this guy: > > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=66651 > > I.e., what is the most robust filesystem for Linux? > > The box will be used as a gateway/firewall for a branch office, so I really > couldn't care less about filesystem performance. But the utility power there > is horrendous, so I need something that can shrug off a catastrophic power > loss, and/or very fast fsck. ISO9660? Read-only, error correction, and have logging go over the network to something else. (Well, ISO9660 isn't required; any read-only media with a read-only filesystem would probably do.) -- :wq