Re: Best file system
While we are talking about filesystems, I am using a server with an ext3
filesystem. Due to a bug (software, me, client... I don't know), the
zeodb database was stored into the temporary directory (/tmp/) and
As there is no way of doing an undelete with ext3, I dump the partition
with dd (dd if=/dev/hda7 of=/home/dump_temp.dump bs=1048576 count=1024).
It still contains my data;
I was wondering if there is any tool which could *attack* this file and
recreate "original" files.
When I see this kind of problems, I am thinking to switch back servers
to ext2 (even with the long fs check).
Le mercredi 01 février 2006 à 18:38 +0200, Mustafa Kutsal Ay a écrit :
> i think really depens on what is your aim.
> depending on sizes of files you store in the logical filesystem, ext3
> has 3 alternatives: standard, largefile, verylarge. so that it uses
> inodes table optimal which will affect the iosystem to reach
> indexes/fileinfo and access file in physical rapidly.
> there is another option you can choose is reisefs (my fav) if you are
> planning that file system is used for web (/var/www
> or /usr/local/apache/httpdocs). reiserfs is very good at that kind of
> jobs. i warn you about it`s higher risks to get corrupt compared to
> if your data is highly critical (/var/backup) or mostly static
> ( /boot ), ext2 will be the best one that fits your needs.
> Mustafa Kutsal Ay
> sysAdmin @ kanal7
> Office: 212 612 9090 3220
> GSM : 532 676 9778 | 555 448 1213
> system admin, software engineer, radiesthesist
> weblog: www.iplikci.com/musti
> email@example.com said on Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:59:43PM +0100:
> > Hi,
> > I'm setting up a new postfix server with SATA RAID. And I wonder
> > the best file system would be?
> It really depends on what you're doing.
> > I've had so many recommendations, and I'm not experienced enough to
> > make the call myself.
> > So, any suggestions?
> Actually, yes! If your server has a UPS, and will automatically do a
> clean shutdown on power failure, then you should try ReiserFS, XFS,
> ext3 under the workload you're expecting. If you don't _know_ what
> workload is, then try using bonnie++ to get an idea of the performance
> characteristics of your filesystem and disk IO subsystem.
> If you server is _not_ going to have a UPS, then you're pretty much
> stuck with ext3, for the reasons detailed here:
> You should still benchmark, though, if you care about performance;
> are quite a few IO tuning parameters that can have positive effects on
> system performance (for example, changing the IO scheduler can affect
> database hosts positively).
> If you don't care about performance enough to benchmark, then I'd say
> with ext3: it's the default and is well tested.