Re: Linux filesystems was [Re: Debian cd supporting ext4.]
We use XFS in production at work. Where I work, we are routinely dealing with hundreds of terabytes of data (I have heard the word "petabyte" bandied about in several meetings), so we are beyond or hovering on the edge of the size limits and performance limits of the ext filesystems.
At home, I primarily do reiserfs, for the simple reason that I have had need in the past (more than one would guess) where I have needed to shrink a filesystem. In fact, I needed to do so on a box at work.
Right now, I am trying to get my brain around the improvements in btrfs, and hoping that will take off as many say it will.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Aniruddha <email@example.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Stan Hoeppner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Volkan YAZICI put forth on 7/27/2010 8:22 AM:
> You are missing a very important point: Durability to power failures.
> (Excuse me, but a majority of GNU/Linux users are not switched to a UPS
> or something.) And that's where XFS totally fails.
a fantastic piece of FOSS into which many top-of-their-game
kernel engineers have put tens of thousands of man hours, striving to make it
the best it can be--and are wildly succeeding.
That's was very informative, thanks. You got me curious and I will test XFS on my home system. To be honest I am still little wary of using XFS in a production environment. For years now I have heard stories of power failures with catastrophic results when using XFS. Anyone who using XFS in a mission critical production environment? Anyone has experience with that?