Re: [SPAM] Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Fielder George Dowding wrote:
> Thank you, Tom, for the comparison. I have used ext3 but became
> disenchanted when I found it liked to do an old ext2 fsck on boot every
> so often according to some magic number. I tried both xfs and jfs
> without much joy. At the time (perhaps two years ago now) grub would not
> boot with xfs as the boot partition file format. I learned that I could
> use reiserfs as the boot partition file format if I made the partition
> sufficiently large, which is not a problem with today's hard drives. I
> can't remember why jfs gave little joy. These days I use reiserfs with
> much joy. I don't understand the problem that others are having with it.
> My systems are lightly loaded workstations and servers. I do not use any
> data base systems. That is going to change as soon as I can figure out
> how to use MySQL and PostgreSQL.
The time between fsck's is not magic in ext3. it is right in the
information you get from tune2fs, and adjustable with the same tool
(including turning them off entirely).
As for reiserfs, well I have been burned by its design in the past, and
don't trust it anymore. I recently read that apparently they now
support ordered writes, which would probably elliminate the cause of the
data loss I had from it. Certainly ext3 uses ordered writes by default,
and I haven't lost data to it yet. I still think any FS that doesn't
have a reliable safe recovery tool isn't worth using. So reiserfs is
out for me.
Len Sorensen
Reply to: