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

Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?

This is the second fs thread lately, but all add my thoughts here, too. 8)

I've used for years and only had one minor problem (fsck thought
there was a hash problem when there wasn't). I've used it on x86, amd64,
sparc64, alpha, and ppc32.

+ dynamic inodes
+ has data=ordered
+ supports write barriers
+ much faster than ext3
- slower than xfs and jfs in some cases

I've used on x86, amd64, sparc64, and ppc32. No problems, but reiserfs was
stable before ext3 was!

+ compatability
+ has data=ordered
+ write barriers
+ data=journalled (rarely useful, tho)
- slow!
- fixed inode tables (tho, that makes fsck more reliable)

I've only tried on x86.

+ dynamic inodes
+ nointegrity option speeds up restoring from backup
+ lower cpu usage
- high latency than xfs
- doesn't support write barriers
- no order constraints

Only tried on x86.

+ dynamic inodes
+ delayed allocation
+ write barriers
+ lower latency than jfs
- no order constraints
- high cpu usage

Tom Vier <tmv@comcast.net>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE

Reply to: