Re: Best File System for partitions over 600GB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/13/07 12:59, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> FYI, *any* filesystem has the potential to lose data on a sudden power
> Umm, no. I suppose you haven't worked in telecomm. I've supported
> file systems which never, ever, lost anything. If the system call
> came back, and said it was on disc, then it was. If power failed,
> then any writes in progress might not get committed, but no data
> scrambling could take place, even if the hardware scribbled on
> the disc.
>>> I cannot prove it
>>> either, it is just the experience which I had every time after I tried
>>> XFS in the last years.
>> So, in other words, you are giving anecdotal "evidence" as the backing
>> for sweeping generalizations?
> What are you doing, making sweeping claims about every file system
> in the world, when you cannot possibly know everything about
> every file system?
>>> And every time I came back to ext3 where I can
>>> not remember such trouble.
>> Well, as an anecdote of my own, I have used both XFS and ext3 quite
>> extensively and found that they are equally as good, given *quality*
> A good FS should not suffer corruption regardless of what the
> hardware does, if we're talking *quality*, that is.
ODS-2 (the OpenVMS file system) is like that. But you pay $15000
per CPU per year support, and it's a hell of a lot slower than ext3,
XFS, JFS, ReiserFS.
OpenVMS used to be more popular with geeks than Unix was. But
businesses and Universities decided that it was worth it to trade 2
slow-but-reliable VAXen for 10 fast-but-flaky Suns.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----