Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
"Thomas Steffen" <email@example.com> writes:
> On 6/16/06, Hemlock <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Grub does understand xfs so having /boot on xfs is no problem. Many
people have that.
What doesn't work is having grub installed on the same device as xfs,
e.g. xfs on /dev/sda and grub in the mbr or grub on /dev/sda1 with
xfs. The filesystem does not have a blank space at the start for the
boot code like other filesystems so grub and xfs code would overwrite
You must have grub in the mbr and xfs on a partition.