Re: XFS worth it?
On 4/15/05, Kevin Poorman <kjp@ekklesiaproject.org> wrote:
> Here in the lightning capital of the world the power goes out daily, XFS has
> never failed to find/use/reconstruct the log. I use XFS strictly because of
> that.
Wow, that is pretty exciting. No, I don't really experience that kind
of stability. I have also tried reiserfs, and it seems like it is
actually doing a better job on journaling.
What I have seen several times with XFS is that after a crash, files
that were created just before the crash (like config files) are filled
with zeros. It seems like the file is not flushed after close. If you
try to get your 3D acceleration to work, changes are that it is you
XF86Config-4 :-). It also "erased" my mozilla prefs.js on two
occasions. It might be a coincidence, but it never happened to me on
reiserfs.
> I lost a semester of research data to a Reiser partition. wouldn't touch it
> for the world. Ext3 had worse performance than XFS on this system.
Well, I had a somewhat unstable system at one time, and I lost both a
reiserfs and an XFS partition beyond repair. (The reiferfs repair
utilities sucked a lot back then, whereas XFS was already pretty
mature.) Luckily I always configure a system and a data partition, and
keep a copy of my home directory, so it was only a minor loss.
But I do wonder, because less and less people seem to use XFS, and SGI
isn't doing so well either. Without them, XFS would probably decay
pretty rapidly?
Thomas
Reply to: