thus John R Pierce spake:
> Timo Schoeler wrote:
>> For enterprise environments my favorite FS is XFS, YMMV, though.
>>
>
> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in RHEL
> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic loss
> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
> have you
Well, I used XFS both on IRIX (which I still use) as well as on
GNU/Linux; I had not a single problem with it ever since. In a company I
worked for (it was 2005, I think) we had to decide which FS we would use
for our new, multi TiByte big EMC2 storage. After some weeks of testing,
we ended up using XFS.
Searching around there are many benchmarks FS x vs. FS y vs...
> is B) no longer an issue?
>
> I wanna know how come JFS/JFS2 (originally from IBM) isn't more popular
> in the linux world? At least as implemented in AIX, its rock stable,
> journaling, excellent performance, and handles both huge files and lots
> of tiny files without blinking. jfs2 handles really huge file systems,
> too. I really like how, in AIX, the VM and FS tools are coordinated, so
> expanding and reorganizing file systems is trivial, nearly as simple as
> Sun's ZFS.
I use AIX on my personal workstation in the office (besides my CentOS
machine); it's awesome.
However, one has to keep in mind that for both XFS as well as for
JFS/JFS2 a few/some/many utilities are not ported over to the GNU/Linux
world. Furthermore, LVM surely doesn't support all the nitty-gritty
stuff that XFS, JFS etc. support...
> [1] replace power failure with unexpected ups event if you prefer.
Timo
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
