Chris Allen wrote: > Francois Barre wrote: > > 2006/6/23, PFC <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> - XFS is faster and fragments less, but make sure you have a > >> good UPS > > > > Why a good UPS ? XFS has a good strong journal, I never had an issue > > with it yet... And believe me, I did have some dirty things happening > > here... > > > >> - ReiserFS 3.6 is mature and fast, too, you might consider it > >> - ext3 is slow if you have many files in one directory, but > >> has more > >> mature tools (resize, recovery etc) > > > > XFS tools are kind of mature also. Online grow, dump, ... > > > >> I'd go with XFS or Reiser. > > > > I'd go with XFS. But I may be kind of fanatic... > > Strange that whatever the filesystem you get equal numbers of people > saying that they have never lost a single byte to those who have had > horrible corruption and would never touch it again. We stopped using XFS > about a year ago because we were getting kernel stack space panics under > heavy load over NFS. It looks like the time has come to give it another > try. If you are keen on data integrity then don't touch any fs w/o data=ordered. ext3 is still king wrt data=ordered, albeit slow. Now XFS is fast, but doesn't support data=ordered. It seems that their solution to the problem is to pass the burden onto hw by using barriers. Maybe XFS can get away with this. Maybe. Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
