Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
"Thomas Steffen" <steffen.list.account@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thomas
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
each other.
You must have grub in the mbr and xfs on a partition.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: