> And truthfully, for a system of this caliber, you don't really gain > anything by using XFS, certainly not from a performance standpoint. If > you were already an XFS user on large systems and it was simply your "go > to" filesystem, then using it on this system may make sense. And if you > don't have a working UPS, you should definitely stay away from XFS. > Power failure shouldn't cause filesystem corruption, but it may well > corrupt or zero out files that are open for write but not written. XFS > journals metadata, not data. i'm using xfs because i tested with ext4, xfs and reiserfs (v3) and xfs was the fastest i use UPS, but... well you know... some one can remove the power cable... users sometime make mistakes :) hehe i didn't tested the btrfs yet, i think it's not mature for production use well power failure is a problem in any filesystem... what filesystem you consider is the "best"? considering that: i'm running filesystem over md raid1 best = good power failure files with >40gb (some mysql tables are big) a big directory structure (root directory with man pages libs, linux kernel and some packages that i compile (php, mariadb, apache), and others linux tools, etc...) a home directory with maybe many temporary files, mysql sometime create temporary files for query sorting, in this case crud operations happens very often, create file/put data/read/delete file well i think it's a test scenario, but experiences/ideas are wellcome -- Roberto Spadim -- 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
