On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 07:04:44PM -0500, Sam Leon wrote: > Sergio Belkin wrote: > >Hi I was reading http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/index.html and was amazed > >because XFS powerful features. But I'd like opinions if xfs should be a > >good alternative to ext3 in typical cases, or if it should be relegated to > >critical missions servers. > > > > From what I have read xfs and jfs can corrupt data quickly if the drive > is not properly unmounted first (ie, forced reboot, power outage) > > People generally stick with ext3 because there is more support for it.
Not this thread again. I went from ext3 to JFS because I have frequent power failures and Sarge's ext3 would get invisible mysterious errors that ended up with a corrupted file system, especially if the power failed during a fsck. At the time, I didn't go with XFS because at that time there were problems with XFS and loosing data. I haven't done a recent comparison but both file systems were developed by their companies to do slightly different things. IBM was focused on transaction-oriented servers for e-commerce. If the power failed or the server crashed, they wanted the fsck to go as fast as possible. So the filesystem will come up quickly in a good state; that some files could possibly be missing is a good reason for backups. So the notion that JFS isn't good at unclean shutdowns goes against one of the design criteria. SGI's XFS was more for compute-oriented boxes (XFS is used in the new Cray super-computers) and grahpics workstations. The filesystems can be staggeringly huge and so also need a quick fsck in the event of power failure. In both cases, down time either during fsck or fixing of missing or broken files represents real financial burden. So they're both designed to do basically the same thing from companies with two different target markets. At any given point, the difference will be how well Linux handles them; what subset of the features are implemented. When I chose JFS, XFS had some problems. Based on posts to recent threads on this topic, I believe that they both work fine now. As for the features, there was an article in the Linux Gazatte that I'm looking up now... http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html that does some real-world benchmark comparisons. Its from May, 2004 and the kernel is a 2.4. However, it may be useful. Try a google search for 'XFS JFS Linux' You've got sgi's site for XFS. Here's IBM's JFS site: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-jfs.html Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
