On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Dan Hollis wrote: > On 18 Apr 2002, Florin Andrei wrote: > > 3. XFS > > This is interesting, because the XFS code base is actually very mature > > and stable. That's why, i guess, the Linux port became stable so > > quickly: because only the Linux "hooks" had to be made stable, while the > > core was already mature. > > xfs is still battling corruption problems, and there is still the "nulls > in files" problem. while xfs core code may be mature the linux port is > not. i wouldn't suggest it for any production systems at the moment. > (i had big problems with xfs on several production machines) > > ext3 doesn't have the nulls-in-files problem due to the way it journals, > and I never had it happen on reiserfs (although it may be possible with > reiserfs, i don't know). With reiserfs, you can still get crap data in files, but you always get filesystem integrity (i.e. it doesn't need rebuilding, normally, unless you get actual I/O errors to the disk, like a bad sector). With ext3, I've haven't seen this at all (yet :o) > also the fact you can't fsck a readonly mounted xfs filesystem is a > downer. neither ext(2|3) or reiserfs have this problem. it is unique to > xfs. > > i haven't played with jfs at all, afaik it is the most recent of the > bunch. it has interesting features but it seems both xfs and reiser are > considerably more advanced and tested. jfs is working pretty well, I have >20G in a 30G partition and have had no problems apart from forgetting to set an fsck pass number in /etc/fstab so the first time I reset the machine it refused to mount until I'd run fsck, but all it did was reply the journal and mark the fs clean -- a fraction of a second. Performance is OK. Some things seem quicker, some slower; but I've done a couple of quick tests (timed untarring the kernel sources) and jfs wins by a small margin over reiserfs with markedly lower "system" time used. Removing the tree seems a bit slower than on reiserfs but how often do you need to "rm -rf" huge trees and worry about the time it takes? > at the moment i would recommend reiserfs over xfs. It would depend on the application ... ext3 is actually better for some applications (according to a quick web search a while back, a "real world" benchmark with some databases showed ext3 a winner). ReiserFS on the other hand was optimized for Squid a while back. You may get better performance for adding and removing small files if you disable tail-packing (the "notail" mount option) but you'll save space with it enabled. > -Dan
