xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Good, recent FS comparison?

To: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison?
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:17:08 +0300
Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <432A37BF.7060305@xxxxxxxx>
References: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <432A37BF.7060305@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.5
Tyler wrote:
> Ewan Grantham wrote:
> >I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was
> >prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the
> >filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about
> >ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough
> >to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?
>
> You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size
> and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis.  I would consider
> ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them.  We've had
> really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad
> experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it
> were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.

Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if 
you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this.

XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode.
reiser4 is still new.
ext3 is rock-solid!

--
Al


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>