On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 11:52 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Samstag, 12. März 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > ext3 is inefficient for large files since it uses simple block bitmaps. > > how inefficient is it? how large? The larger the file, the more benefit there is from mapping its blocks with extents. The cost in terms of disk space is minimal. The cost in terms of seek operations is probably more significant. > What put me off from using xfs or reiserfs were quite frequent stories about > data loss with those filesystems (which I see until today). I rather have my > data served slower, but reliable. Definitely don't use reiserfs (any version). XFS should be fine, but doesn't flush data to disk as eagerly as ext3, i.e. you need an explicit sync before you can be sure the data will still be there after an unclean shutdown. Same is true for ext4 (at least with default settings). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part