Re: Opinions on ext3 vs XFS vs reiserfs for LAMP server
On 08/24/07 08:10:24AM -0700, michael@estone.ca wrote:
> Quoting Jim Crilly <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net>:
>
> >>I tested the exact same thing again but waited 60 seconds after saving
> >>the file, and then yanked the power out. Upon a boot up, the file was
> >>intact and the save worked. So you still have about a 60 second window
> >>of newly written files and a power loss for data corruption, unless
> >>the program can sync it to disk before that.
> >>
> >
> >Well I'm only passing on what the XFS devs have said, all of my boxes are
> >on UPSes so I rarely saw the issue anyway. But are you sure the squares you
> >saw in the word doc were nulls? The FAQ page says that you can use the
> >xfs_bmap command to see if it has any extents allocated and if it does then
> >it would likely be another issue.
> >
>
> I'm not sure.
> I'm thinking the nulls thing is indeed fixed, but perhaps its still
> something different than the very nature of XFS. My understanding is
> limited of its mechanics, but since XFS will never journal data, only
> meta-data, then won't there always be the chance that a file can get
> corrupted on a timely power loss?
>
AFAIK ext3 is the only one where data journaling is even an option and
virtually no one uses it since it's off by default so XFS is no worse in
that regard. Also since you were testing via Samba there's a chance that
it's doing something funny that 'normal' Linux processes won't do when you
save a file.
Jim.
Reply to: