* Douglas Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006 Dec 11 06:16 -0600]:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Jeff Zhang wrote:
> > which fs system (jfs, xfs or future ext4) will perform better for desktop
> > usage under occasional power failure circumstance? like recover from power
> > failure and fragment after long time run.
> > thanks in advance!
>
> I ran into this. I started with ext2 (the standard) which got corrupted
> and lost files with power failure. Went to ext3 (ext2 + journal) which
> was better but __silently__ would lose files. Went to Reiserfs which
> would get corrupted by reiserfsck. Went to JFS and no more problems.
Yikes!
I haven't seen that issue and I've been using ext3 through quite a
number of kernel variations and through various power outages on both
desktop and laptop systems for at least a couple of years or more.
Ext3 even masked a failing hardrive for a couple of years until it
failed completely. As I see it, ext3 has a great number of tools
available to work with it if necessary and is well tested.
I have one partition on my laptop with ReiserFS and it came up with
errors one day and that was a positively scary experience although
everything turned out fine. Since then I have avoided ReiserFS and
stayed with ext3 which has served me very well on a number of
installs/systems.
- Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
