On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:48:56 -0800
John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
> is B) no longer an issue?
You get horror stories about anything, depending on which people you ask.
For example, where reiserfs was supposed to eat data left and right some
years ago, I had 6 data losing crashes on ext3 and 0 with reiserfs. On same
machine, same disks, so same conditions. Go figure.
> 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.
AFAIK AIX JFS != Linux JFS. It's more like OS/2 JFS and IBM
ported it to linux to enable their os/2 customers to move to linux.
Also whenever fs reliability discussion pops up I like to point people to
this paper: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/wind/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf
Tables on page 8 are most amusing.
Also shows which filesystems were developed in an academic world and which
were engineered in a real world ;)
--
Jure Pečar
http://jure.pecar.org
http://f5j.eu
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
