JFS in Ubuntu

James Gray 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  
>> ext4
>> (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  
>> isn't
>> as fast as some (but can be improved
>> http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435)...I still like it.
>> HTH,
>> James
> 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  
> null
> characters.

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...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20081018/91f22d4d/attachment.bin>

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list