11/14 Any reason I should format my disk in JFS or XFS or REISERFS
instead of good old EXT3 (this is Linux, obviously) ?
\_ XFS supports larger filesystems than ext3, which may or may not
matter to you.
\_ The "larger" filesystem quantifier is no longer big of an
\_ What if I really do want to get rid of her?
issue, especially if you're using 64-bit OS. But if you're
working with large files, this is where xfs shines. ReiserFS
is still better at handling many small files. I have no
experience with JFS. Last I used ReiserFS, it had no
dump/restore tools, which may or may not matter to you.
\_ if you go with resierfs, your wife might go missing and you get
the blame for her disappearance!
\_ Don't kill your wife and it won't be a problem.
\_ What if I really do want to get rid of her?
\_ Divorce is less risky than murder.
\_ I still haven't found a fs format that plays well with mac / windows
and unix all at the same time. Fat32 is a weak kludge ,
and it won't handle files larger than 1 gig i believe.
\_ There's now an ext2/ext3 driver availiable for Windows. I use
\_ There's now an ext2/ext3 driver available for Windows. I use
that for my shared drive now rather than Fat32. I don't know
about Mac.
\_ is it reliable? do you trust it?
\_ Well, I haven't had any trouble with it. Of course, I'm
not doing anything all that important either, and it's all
backed up. It's not the most user friendly thing in the
world. It doesn't automount the ext2 drives, for example.
Here's the link. http://www.fs-driver.org
\_ Did zfs end up in Leopard, or was it pulled before release?
There are slow-but-working zfs support for linux and windows,
as well as ports to freebsd and of course, opensolaris.
\_ ext3 does not support online defragmentation.
\_ We looked at all four file systems a few years back and ext3 was
the most reliable by far. JFS is a distant second, but there are
still cases in the code where a power outage at the wrong time will
lead to massive data loss. XFS does not support errors during
journal replay (by design) and thus is TOTALLY UNSUITABLE for any
data you really care about (again, by design). The last I looked,
ReiserFS had some fundamental errors / race conditions in journal
replay. When it is my data, I use ext3. --twohey
\- i'm curious how much of your finding were things flawed-by-
design vs. implementations bugs [which could have been fixed
since], as well as if you were just looking at the potential for
irrecoverable data loss, or worst case performance issues
[like some fs+hardware combos seem to have problems with
high metarate operation rates, or concurrency etc]. anyway,
if you have some ptrs to papers you think have still relevant
results, i'd be interested. [btw, have you seen ibm gpfs?
that fs blew me away from day 1]. --psb
\_ How much is gpfs?
\- One Million Dollars, Mr. Bond.
\_ It has been about 5 years but XFS+Linux was horrible at that
time. We lost a lot of data on Linux XFS. SGI XFS was like
magic, though. We brutally punished an SGI box and it kept
on ticking.
\_ You might want to try Veritas' VxFS. They give it away with
VxVM in a combination called "Storage Foundation Basic". I think
they limit the number of file systems you can use in the free
version.
\_ Thanks for pointing out the freebie version.
\_ I've always wondered about VxFS, but never had a chance to
get my hands on it. What are some of the advanced features
it provides over usual list of linux/bsd file systems? |
http://csua.com/feed/