On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Laurent Wandrebeck
<l.wandrebeck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Supposedly ext3 has sped up with the 2.6 kernels.
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
The only thing I don't like about ext3 is the fsck. On relatively
small filesystems, it's an annoyance. But on huge filesystem,
500-1000GB, a system may take a long, long time to come back up.
--
Jiann-Ming Su
"I have to decide between two equally frightening options.
If I wanted to do that, I'd vote." --Duckman
"The system's broke, Hank. The election baby has peed in
the bath water. You got to throw 'em both out." --Dale Gribble
"Those who vote decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything." --Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
