On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:58:31PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > * Roberto C. Sanchez [Mon, Mar 12 2007, 07:06:43PM]: > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:34:48PM +0100, Mathias Brodala wrote: > > > > > I see. I was asking since I have a whole drive full of videos and such > > > which are > > > usually between 100MB and 300MB per file. So I guess XFS would not really > > > be the > > > best choice for them. I got ext3 everywhere at the moment and wondered if > > > I > > > could get a bit more performance by using another filesystem. And since I > > > only > > > used ext3 up until now, I don???t really know which other filesystem to > > > trust. > > > > > I would certainly trust XFS. Of course, if you don't have your machine > > on an UPS, it can cause problems on a crash or power outage. How are > > Great, that is the usual propaganda from XFS users with the same lame > excuse written with small letters. It has this bad tendency to shred the > file contents after powerouts or sudden kernel crashes... silently > inserting lots of 0x0s, IIRC sometimes only a 512 byte block, sometimes > filling the rest of a file after a certain position. I cannot prove it > either, it is just the experience which I had every time after I tried > XFS in the last years. And every time I came back to ext3 where I can > not remember such trouble.
I avoided XFS for this reason. I went with JFS. If you read IBM's design philosophy on it, it is designed to get a server back up and running ASAP with data intact after a crash or power failure. When I made the switch, I didn't have a UPS and I did have unreliable power (I eventually put the whole house on a big UPS). JFS has been perfect. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
