Re: Best File System for partitions over 600GB
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:58:31PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Roberto C. Sanchez [Mon, Mar 12 2007, 07:06:43PM]:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:34:48PM +0100, Mathias Brodala wrote:
> >
> > > I see. I was asking since I have a whole drive full of videos and such which are
> > > usually between 100MB and 300MB per file. So I guess XFS would not really be the
> > > best choice for them. I got ext3 everywhere at the moment and wondered if I
> > > could get a bit more performance by using another filesystem. And since I only
> > > used ext3 up until now, I don???t really know which other filesystem to trust.
> > >
> > I would certainly trust XFS. Of course, if you don't have your machine
> > on an UPS, it can cause problems on a crash or power outage. How are
>
> Great, that is the usual propaganda from XFS users with the same lame
> excuse written with small letters. It has this bad tendency to shred the
> file contents after powerouts or sudden kernel crashes... silently
> inserting lots of 0x0s, IIRC sometimes only a 512 byte block, sometimes
> filling the rest of a file after a certain position. I cannot prove it
> either, it is just the experience which I had every time after I tried
> XFS in the last years. And every time I came back to ext3 where I can
> not remember such trouble.
I avoided XFS for this reason. I went with JFS. If you read IBM's
design philosophy on it, it is designed to get a server back up and
running ASAP with data intact after a crash or power failure. When I
made the switch, I didn't have a UPS and I did have unreliable power (I
eventually put the whole house on a big UPS). JFS has been perfect.
Doug.
Reply to: