Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
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 (220.127.116.11 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.
If I remember right I was using sarge with kernel 2.6.11 and X locked up
on me. I can't remember if I killed it from a virtual terminal and then
rebooted or if I had to hard reboot. But I wasn't able to recover from
that. It was my desktop machine and just using a plain old HD (no RAID
or LVM). What really turned me off from XFS though, was that I got no
response on the mailing list even though it seemed pretty active.