Re: Overwrite existing partition with zeros without hurting partition table? (Debian Lenny)
Mark Allums put forth on 3/7/2010 9:05 PM:
> Well, you undoubtedly have more experience than I with servers. JFS is
> dying. XFS *is not* suitable for desktops, you are correct.
I don't know if it is or isn't suitable for desktops. It was the default FS
on Irix desktop workstations for over a decade until they were discontinued.
So obviously it's not totally unsuitable for a Linux desktop. As long as
one has a UPS and isn't running bleeding edge kernels, risking panics or
crashes, one should be reasonably safe. I've been using Linux since around
1999/2000 and I've never had a system crash or panic. I've had a couple go
down when batteries ran dry during long power outages and they came up fine.
Although I was using EXT2 at the time. I doubt XFS would have fared any
worse, given the machines had little load, and thus little chance of pending
writes that wouldn't have been flushed.
> I spend a lot of time experimenting, and a simple, stable FS is very
> necessary for me. When everything comes apart, putting the pieces back
> together is much easier when you can at least mount the filesystem.
If you're living on the bleeding edge and crashing your system often, I'd
guess you're probably better off not using XFS.
> XFS is kind of specialized.
That may have been true in the past before it was open sourced, when it was
SGI proprietary. Since its inclusion in Linux, it is just as at home on a
small business/personal server as on SGI's 2048 CPU Altix supercomputers:
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
"Based on all testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the
most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or
small-business needs :
* It uses the maximum capacity of your server hard disk(s)
* It is the quickest FS to create, mount and unmount
* It is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB)
* This FS gets a good second place for operations on a large number of
small to moderate-size files and directories
* It constitutes a good CPU vs time compromise for large directory
listing or file search
* It is not the least CPU demanding FS but its use of system ressources
is quite acceptable for older generation hardware"
> And I don't really know enough about it
> myself to feel good about using it. So I will concede that perhaps it
> is a better choice than Ext2/3/4 for your application, and certainly a
> better choice for new installs than Reiser.
Look into XFS for desktop use. You may be surprised at what is has to
offer. I'm not saying jump right in, but at least do a little reading and
see if it might be worth just testing for your uses.
I'm on the XFS mailing list, and there are patch commits almost daily. This
FS is in very active development today, even though it is already very
mature. The same can be said of the Linux kernel.
--
Stan
Reply to: