Ubuntu becomes unusable - force fsck when needed
edward at dlconsulting.com
Mon Sep 4 21:45:26 BST 2006
As the GP said about JFS, it's relatively untested compared to ext3, and
given that whenever the name Reiser4 is raised, people say bad things
about it, I'd be very reluctant to recommend it to anyone (not that I
have any such power, except where I work).
I'd be more inclined to go with JFS or XFS, because both have been well
tested on Big Iron(TM) systems. JFS and XFS coming from IBM's AIX
mainframes and SGI's Irix respectively.
However, as the GP also hinted at, hardware is now very cheap in
comparison to what it used to be. I'd hazard a guess that XFS and JFS
were both originally deployed on good hardware. I have to confess that
even here, the filesystems that actually contain data (as oppossed to
OS/Programs that I can reinstall from net or CD) are mounted on a RAID-5
I'd be curious to know what formal tests - if any - people have done for
various filesystems in the event of hardware failure. The damage done to
a given users impression of Linux in the event that a hardware failure
could be quite substantial, 'Linux destroyed the pictures of my dog!'
even if it's not actually the fault of Linux per se.
Samuel Cormier-Iijima wrote:
> When/if Reiser4 gets included into the mainline kernel, would that be
> a good candidate as the default filesystem?
More information about the ubuntu-devel