Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> John R Pierce 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
>>
>
> Fixed with the introduction of barriers for stuff that use fsync
> (therefore xfs on a partition, not lvm since dm does not support
> barriers) but then one probably uses hw raid with big bbu caches for xfs....
>
>> 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.
>>
> yeah, love jfs. Using that in Ubuntu land.
Do any of these handle per-file fsync() in a reasonable way (i.e. not waiting to
flush the entire filesystem buffer)?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
