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

Re: XFS over EXT3

Alvin Oga <aoga@ns.Linux-Consulting.com> writes:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 nemesisdivina@gennux.ca wrote:
>> Greetings to all:
>> I'm planning to install debian and planning to use XFS instead of Ext3,
>> does anybody know how to do ti, or know of any advantage of one file
>> system over the other, any recomendation will be appretiated.
> for a benchmark comparison
> 	http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems/

This doesn't strike me as really rigorous.  It also doesn't strike me
as really current; their filesystems are patches vs. kernel 2.4.5,
which is from May of 2001, and they express some concerns over the
"testing" nature of ext3, where it seems to be quite stable for most
people on this list.

> use xfs instead of ext3 ... 
> ( if ext2 gets seriously messed up, ext3 is dead )

"If the bits get corrupted, your filesystem doesn't work."  This
applies to any filesystem.  I've never heard of people having issues
with ext3, and it being a layer on top of ext2 is generally seen as an
asset (since older tools can still use the underlying filesystem).

Common wisdom seems to be that ext2 is just fine for most users, but
it has the annoyance of long fsck times if the machine goes down
unexpectedly.  ext3 is also fine for most users and gets around this.
reiserfs is supposedly good for situations where you have lots and
lots of small files (e.g., news servers), but there's some FUD about
tool support for it.  I haven't really heard anything compelling about
anything else, including XFS.

David Maze         dmaze@debian.org      http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
	-- Abra Mitchell

Reply to: