Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Alvin Oga wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Rob Benton wrote:
> > I've lost data and a whole partition using xfs. I wouldn't call it
> > stable. I use reiser now.
XFS *is* stable now, as long as you don't do a "don't do that" thing like
two MDs on top of each other (to get RAID0+1) and then apply LVM on top of
it :-) But for XFS it still remains the truth that you better be keeping up
with the stable kernels (126.96.36.199 right now), buglets are still being found
here and there, while ext3 is even more stable (but buglets still show up
every few releases).
Also, XFS guarantees data (as oposed to *meta*data, which is the filesystem
structures) *only* after a fsync or sync returns. Ext3 guarantees it
always (and thus, cannot help but be slower than XFS for non sync
I have no idea about raiser3.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot