Re: Filesystem for backup system

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

 



On 13Oct2016 14:29, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/12/2016 03:57 PM, cs@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Except it the wildest scenarios, XFS fsks at mount, almost immediately.

Is that different from fsck.ext4 replaying the journal?

Not fundamentally.

Go and cat (yes, cat) the fsck.xfs command.

OK.  I'm not sure what you think I'll learn by doing so.

Only that it is a shell script that handles the typically used boot options, but doesn't do anything else.

fsck.xfs exists because Linux's "fsck" supports multiple filesystems and Irix's did not. On Irix, fsck was exclusively for EFS. XFS used xfs_check and xfs_repair. When XFS was ported to Linux, the tools were not renamed; instead fsck.xfs was put in place to direct users to the correct tool when they ran "fsck -t xfs".

And when they really need a repair that the XFS mount process doesn't accomplish.

None of that makes XFS immune to corruption, nor reduce the time or the memory required to fix an XFS filesystem if it's damaged.

Of course not, though I have the impression that the repair tool is less memory intensive than the ext4 equivalent.

"Never" is indeed not _literally_ true, but it is effectively true, far far far far more than is so with ext4. Ext4 really needs fsck after an unclean unmount, and it is not cheap for large filesystems.

With journaling and write barriers in place, I don't know any reason that ext4 would be any more affected by a power loss than XFS would be, and having had to perform recoveries on both, I don't find one to be significantly better than the other.

Fair enough. We may be into the realm where a question on an XFS list may be more illuminating about the modern state of play.

Thus, my advice remains that users should test both because they do differ in performance in different workloads. If one will be faster under normal operation, 99.95% of the time, and require slightly more down time to recover in the other .05% of the time, then selecting the option which is superior 99.95% of the time is a perfectly rational thing to do.

That's especially true of backup systems where down time does not carry the same impact as down time in a production system does.

The two are like night and day in the recovery scenario (== xfs pretty much never needs manual recovery, and recover is very fast).

That seems subjective. I've personally had to recover more XFS filesystems than I have ext4 filesystems, and I use ext4 filesystems more often. My subjective experience is quite different than yours.

Apparently so. I've had very good experiences with XFS, and plan to stick with it at present.

Out of interest, how recent was your need to recover XFS, and what were the circumstances that caused it to be necessary?

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux