[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?

On 06/17/06 07:39:16PM +0200, Thomas Steffen wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Hemlock <michael@etalon.net> 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.

Every time I've tried reiserfs it's resulted in problems, not usually right
a way, but eventually. The last time the corruption wasn't even detected by
the kernel driver or reiserfsck, both said the fs was fine but any time I
accessed a certain file the screen would blank and the box would hang, I
had to hookup a serial cable to figure out that it was even reiserfs. 

> 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.

AFAIK grub will never work with /boot on XFS because of where the XFS
superblock is, it's not too big of a deal to make a small ext2 /boot
though. I'm using XFS on i386, sparc64 and Alpha without any issues, but I
don't have any AMD64 system to put it on yet.


Reply to: