Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop
I just wanted to add to this thread that ext3 has had its share of problems,
too. I believe it is stable now, however. I've been using reiserfs for
several years, on several machines, and never lost any data.
ext3 and reiserfs have notable advantage over jfs and xfs: they both support
data=ordered. jfs and xfs are the equivilent of data=writeback. You can end
up with files ending with a bunch of zeros, etc - writeback mode only
protects metadata structures. You can lose some file data. Ordered mode will
not update block pointers, bitmaps, etc until the data has been written.
jfs is nice on older machines were low latency isn't an issue. jfs sucks for
using xmms (so does ext3). xfs is better. xfs is more cpu intensive, and it's
a much bigger module, but has delayed allocation and seems to have lower
latency (no stuttering when xmms plays a flac and another reader is active).
ext3 does physical block journalling, instead of just logical journalling.
It typcally uses more journal space per transaction, but physical journal
does allow merging when several changes are made to the same block (changes
that don't have interdependency on changing other blocks). The advantage of
phys journalling is that if the drive loses power during a write to a
metadata block (corrupting the sector), ext3 will rewrite the whole block
during recovery. Mid-write failures are more likely on some drives than
others. They cause a read error until the sector is rewritten with a good
Tom Vier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE