Re: fs system for desktop
On Monday 11 December 2006 18:09, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Douglas Tutty <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2006 Dec 11 06:16 -0600]:
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Jeff Zhang wrote:
> > > which fs system (jfs, xfs or future ext4) will perform better for
> > > desktop usage under occasional power failure circumstance? like recover
> > > from power failure and fragment after long time run.
> > > thanks in advance!
For recovery from power failure, XFS won't suit you cuz of its strange scaling
> > I ran into this. I started with ext2 (the standard) which got corrupted
> > and lost files with power failure. Went to ext3 (ext2 + journal) which
> > was better but __silently__ would lose files. Went to Reiserfs which
> > would get corrupted by reiserfsck. Went to JFS and no more problems.
I don't know but never had any such problem with EXT3. I have been using EXT3
on my / partition for the last 3 years and haven't had one such problem.
I have had some bad experiences with JFS though, maybe cuz the HDD was
failing. But formatted it with XFS and it worked fine. To tell you the truth,
I think XFS is pretty reliable and very fast..but then I have got a UPS to
withstand Power failures with XFS.
So my choice for backups would still be EXT3. Again, cuz it has got more
number of tools written for recovery and are pretty good.