File system beliefs are rooted in experience
erast at gnusolaris.org
Tue Sep 5 18:14:27 BST 2006
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 07:43 -0700, Ian Soutar wrote:
> I do installations for poor people of linux in Victoria BC Canada. I
> was worried about the integrity of data because I cannot afford to
> endlessly fix file systems for these computers. I went around town to
> ISP groups and others who ran large file systems on linux. Everyone I
> spoke to suggested ext3 as the most reliable and everyone had lost data
> with these other file systems except ext3. I spoke to about 8 people
> who were internet service provider tech support guys.
> This matches my experience where I have lost data seriously on reiser
> and xfs. My worst experiences are on reiser. Now the common thing in
> my experience is that I used several laptops where power failures at
> in-opportune times simply happen and cannot always be avoided. Laptops
> are becoming the main line computers of the future.
> Ext3 has always survived and the journal has never been corrupted.
> However it is reassuring to know that I could drop back to ext2 to
> recover the data.
> My strong belief is the the old and slow ext3 is by far the safer way to go.
FYI. If Linux kernel is not really matters, you could try Ubuntu-based
Nexenta. It offers ZFS. Very impressive and advanced filesystem of these
days. In fact, it is more than just filesystem. It does mirror,
optimized raid-6, compression, quota, reservation, variable block size,
etc. Bellow is screencast of its selfhealing feature:
More information about the ubuntu-devel