JFS in Ubuntu
james at gray.net.au
Sat Oct 18 01:15:54 UTC 2008
On 18/10/2008, at 11:17 AM, Rashkae wrote:
> James Gray wrote:
>> Actually, XFS is fairly pervasive on my systems ;) It performs
>> well and
>> is robust. JFS will improve with time and the jury is still out on
>> (again, time will tell). For today though, I'd say XFS is a good
>> alternative to ext3 and although you can't shrink XFS (it can grow
>> though), it has a couple of stability issues on LVM volumes, and it's
>> metadata modification when creating and deleting directory entries
>> as fast as some (but can be improved
>> http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435)...I still like it.
> XFS is, all around, the best performing filesystem.. however, it has
> *big* caveats that make it a poor recommendation to throw around at
> random people.
> XFS delays flushing data to disk for a long time and doesn't write
> meta-data/data in ordered fashion. What does this mean? It means in
> the case of an unclean shut-down, however it comes about, files that
> were being written but not flushed to disk will have be padded with
Point taken :) All my gear (at home) sits on stonking 3kVA UPS and I
honestly can't remember the last time I had a kernel panic on any of
my systems. Work is even better funded than my home network...so yeh,
unclean shutdowns don't exactly worry me.
FWIW, rsync gets around the null-padded file problem :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2417 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ubuntu-users