Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On 6/16/06, Hemlock <email@example.com> wrote:
I've read some articles googling for xfs, ext3 and jfs and such.
Leaning towards xfs maybe?
Don't forget reiserfs. In my experience it works very well. It is
supposed to be more space efficient. On the other hand it also seems
to have performance problems in a few cases, that the other file
systems don't have. Generally it is quite fast, though.
Ext3 is certainly a safe choice, and with the directory hash it should
give really decent performance. One big advantage is that you have so
many ways to access it (rescue disk, Windows driver etc).
XFS is very fast in my experience, but it did have some issues on
AMD64. There where a number of recent kernel patches, e.g. log
recovery is now compatible between 32bit and 64bit. I also found that
it has a very annoying tendency of leaving corrupted files around
after a crash (which I never had with ext2, ext3 or reiserfs). Grub
did not support XFS, although that might be fixed now. There was also
talk about problems between NFS and XFS, but I didn't not follow that.