which file system to use

[David Abrahams]

Tom Smith <tom71713-ubuntu at yahoo.com> writes:

> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
>>David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting.com>:
>>
>>>Alexander Skwar <listen at alexander.skwar.name> writes:
>>>
>>>>John L Fjellstad <john-ubuntu at fjellstad.org>:
>>>>
>>>>Well - turning on/off the hd every 60 seconds isn't *THAT* much
>>>>better, is it? ;) I'd rather set it to 1 hour, or so. BUT: If
>>>>the system crashes, you'll lose the not yet written data. Ie.
>>>>up to 1 hour would be lost.
>>>>
>>>>Because of this and because of the slowness, I'd not suggest ext3
>>>>but rather JFS.
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>[I have a couple of machines (a laptop and a server) with fresh
>>>installs on ext3, and at least one of them probably needs a full
>>>reconfiguration, so I'm following this thread with great interest.]
>>>
>>>Two questions:
>>>1. Does JFS always commit immediately?
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>I don't know for sure, but I don't think, it'll commit *immediately*.
>>This would be bad performancewise, I'd think. I'd suspect, that it,
>>let's say, "groups" together requests, so that the disk access can
>>be minimized.
>>  
>>
> Alex, if JFS doesn't commit "immediately", *then that is not a valid 
> reason to use it on a laptop versus using ext3*

That's why I was asking.  Performance and low CPU load are of course
important factors in improving battery life, but I don't see any
useful arguments based on data integrity here.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com