On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:34:14AM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote: > Carlos Carvalho wrote: > >> I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A >> simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large >> files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the kernel >> tree) is faster with reiser3. > > My current main concern about XFS and reiser3 is writebacks. The default > mode for ext3 is "journal," which in case of power failure is more > robust than the writeback modes of XFS, reiser3, or JFS -- or so I'm > given to understand. > > On the other hand, I have a UPS and it should shut down gracefully > regardless if there's a power failure. I wonder if I'm being too > cautious? I'm not sure what your actual worry is. It's not like XFS loses *commited* data on power failure. It may lose data that was never required to go to disk via fsync()/fdatasync()/sync. If someone is losing data on power failure is the unprotected write cache of the harddrive. If you have properly-behaved applications, then they know when to do an fsync and if XFS returns success on fsync and your linux is properly configured (no write-back caches on drives that are not backed by NVRAM, etc.) then you won't lose data. regards, iustin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
