On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 at 15:10 (-0700), Michael Loftis wrote: > --On December 10, 2005 9:22:32 PM +0100 Marc-Jano Knopp <pub_ml_lvm@marc-jano.de> wrote: > > >Thanks for the detailled explanation! > > I try not to say something without actual experience and technical details > to back it up. :) If only everyone would do that ... (that said, I should better shut up from now on :-} > > So for now, I'll probably stay with ext3, with which I had > > no problems so far. [...] > XFS has terrible unpredictable performance in production. Also it has very > bad behavior when recovering from crashes, often times it's tools totally > fail to clean the filesystem. Okay, so I'm even more biased to using ext3. :-} [...] > I've had far better reliability and performance out of ReiserFS in > production (late 2.4 series... 2.4.20+, currently 2.4.25, with some patches > on most of our larger systems) than XFS. Hmm ... i guess for 2.6.x, experiences can totally differ. [...] > XFS may be a proven filesystem, but it has not yet been proven in Linux' > implementation. That said, all of the filesystems have their own quirks > and shortcomings. We had a corruption problem with our CX200 that caused > our ReiserFS to lose most of it's tails. Really it was the CX200 (EMC > Clariion) fault, but it felt (And still does) at the time that ReiserFS > could've or atleast should've been able to save more of the tail data that > it lost. It didn't lose any files, just a the tails. I thought the tails would be used to save the file blocks with less than $BLOCKSIZE? So, if ReiserFS lost the tails, it would be a very lucky coincidence, if none of the files were damaged. Or am I misguided again? :-} Best regards Marc-Jano _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
