[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)

On 12/13/2014 at 02:45 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> I don't know how effective this check is though.  But I've NEVER
>> had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice
>> thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5
>> seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't
>> actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO
>> quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat
>> there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I
>> don't.
> If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)

What are the downsides of xfs, in overview summary form?

Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context
which struck me as reliable.

Beyond just xfs, I'd also be interested in the same sort of information
(downsides - or more like really trade-offs - and suitability for
general-purpose use) for other not-so-typical filesystems. I've never
been entirely happy with just defaulting to extX for most filesystems
every time I build a new machine, but the last time I did a build with
something else it was reiserfs, and that wound up having problems in the
long run - not to mention ending up relatively unsupported, AFAIK, given
the fate of its namesake and primary developer.

   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: