> As to 'ext4' and doing (euphemism) insipid tests involving > peculiar setups, there is an interesting story in this post: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-03/msg00465.html I really don't see the connection to this thread. You're advocating mostly that tar use fsync on every file, which to me seems absurd. If the system goes down halfway through tar extraction, I would delete the tree and untar again. What do I care if some files are corrupt, when the entire tree is incomplete anyway? Despite the somewhat inflammatory thread subject, I don't want to bash anyone. It's just that untarring large source trees is a very typical workload for me. And I just don't want to accept that XFS cannot do better than being several orders of magnitude slower than ext4 (speaking of binary orders of magnitude). As I see it, both file systems give the same guarantees: 1) That upon completion of sync, all data is readily available on permanent storage. 2) That the file system metadata doesn't suffer corruption, should the system lose power during the operation. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
