2008/11/20 Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
> should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
> me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.
>
> If you'd like, consider the question academic vs giving me a
> recommendation that pushes me down the path of unsupported filesystem
> doom. :-)
Outside more up-to-date question, here is my own experience with jfs/xfs.
The bigger the files with JFS, the slower it is.
XFS tends to get similar performance, whatever the filesize is.
I've had data corruption with both. The thing is, I don't know where
it comes from with JFS, with XFS *do* *not* *ever* run a box without
an UPS. Unclean shutdown will always eat some of your data.
I've been happy with ext3 (no data corruption ever happened) but its
speed is behind the first two.
Hope this helps,
Laurent
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
