On 9/14/2012 3:22 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 14 sep 12, 17:22:36, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Which probably means building a new file system and copying all the
files. Even if it's possible to upgrade in place, it would probably
mean preserving the existing low-level structure, like 512-byte sectors
instead of 4K sectors.
There are docs about migrating ext3 to ext4.
Anybody have any input as to whether ext4 or xfs would offer better long-
term reliability?
There are factions devoted to each. In the short term, either would do,
although I favor ext4 due to the extremely large installed base (of ext?
family). I don't think it will lack for maintenance. In the long term, I
foresee btrfs becoming popular, based on its feature set and potential
benefits.
If you are migrating from an ext? fs, it seems to make the most sense to
me to go with ext4.
Both ext4 and xfs are under active development. The only contender would
be btrfs, which is still considered experimental.
Yes. I think btrfs is not yet suitable for a system that is used
heavily, as all the pieces of the puzzle are not in place yet.
XFS may be more reliable according to some criteria, but according to
some people, it is more likely to suffer fs corruption in the event of a
power outage or hardware failure or kernel crash. This is a source of
some fierce debating.
ext4 is relatively new, not having been considered stable for all that
long, though it *has* been several kernels ago that it was considered
stable. Since before the release of Squeeze.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I think either XFS or ext4 would
be a good choice.
Mark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5053dca7.20...@allums.com
