On 7/27/2010 1:23 AM, Lisi wrote: > On Tuesday 27 July 2010 08:10:15 Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> XFS which is superior to all other Linux filesystems. > > Stan - > > Have you the time to give a rationale for this?
Except XFS filesystems can't shrink, only grow. Sucks when you need to resize partitions/volumes, and they're all XFS. Further, XFS makes more system calls to the kernel than standard Ext2/3/4. Export an XFS filesystem on LVM over NFS, and you'll get a kernel oops on a 32-bit kernel. Trace it, and you'll see the plethora of nested system calls XFS makes. You won't oops with Ext2/3/4 in the same scenario. This can be mitigated by running a 64-bit system, if you have the hardware to do so. XFS has also had a history for randomly corrupting data. While this might have improved over time, I don't trust it. XFS does have dynamic inode allocation, and better data storage algorithms than the Ext-family. It's also a good performer, but Ext4 give XFS a run for its money. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
