Mick wrote:
On Friday 02 April 2010 16:28:43 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:09:30 +0200, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
Then: I often transer videos from my DVB-T-receiver/recorder
to my
harddisk to cut out the advertising and to transcode the
videos to
somethings better than "ts" (transport streams),
These tend to be bigger, often in the GB range, so I'd use a
separate
filesystem for them with XFS, which handles large files
better in my
experience.
He mentioned in one of the first few posts that he regularly
has hard
shutdowns. I took that as pulling the plug. The last bit of
experience
I had with XFS, it does not like that sort of thing to happen.
Each
time I had a hard shutdown, I had to reinstall the OS. Has XFS
changed
so that power loss is not s problem or should he not use this
after all?
Would hate for the OP to use XFS if it has not improved in that
area.
XFS was ropey in its early days. I had to re-install a partition
once too (on a laptop!). It is much more stable now (have not
had a problem in the last 4+ years).
reiserfs is absolutely bullet proof here, with hundreds of
crashes on a machine that had bad memory (like twice or three
times a day I would have to pull the plug, for months on end
until I isolated the error on a memory module).
reiser4 seems to be on a class of its own in terms of
performance. Perhaps not as forgiving on hard crashes as the
reiserfs? Not sure. It's early days yet on this machine, but I
have only praises for it so far. I just hope they incorporate it
in the kernel so that I don't have to manually patch it every
time.
This is just my 2c's - so YMMV.
I haven't used XFS in several years. I was hoping that it had
improved. I just wanted to make sure that it had improved and that it
would be safe considering the OP has hard shutdowns. I wouldn't want
the OP to use it if he would lose data the first time he had a hard
shutdown. That would pretty much suck.
I agree on reiserfs tho. I use it a lot here as well. It works very
well for me.
Dale
:-) :-)
