Kerin Millar wrote: > On 06/09/2014 13:54, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 06/09/2014 14:48, Dale wrote: >>> James wrote: >>>> Joseph <syscon780 <at> gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Thank you for the information. >>>>> I'll continue on Monday and let you know. If it will not boot >>>>> with sector >>>> starting at 2048, I will >>>>> re-partition /boot sda1 to start at 63. >>>> >>>> Take some time to research and reflect on your needs (desires?) >>>> about which file system to use. (ext 2,4) is always popular and safe. >>>> Some are very happy with BTRFS and there are many other interesting >>>> choices (ZFS, XFS, etc etc)...... >>>> >>>> There is no best solution; but the EXT family offers tried and proven >>>> options. YMMV. >>>> >>>> >>>> hth, >>>> James >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure if it is ZFS or XFS but I seem to recall one of those does >>> not like sudden shutdowns, such as a power failure. Maybe that has >>> changed since I last tried whichever one it is that has that issue. If >>> you have a UPS tho, shouldn't be so much of a problem, unless your >>> power >>> supply goes out. >> >> XFS. >> >> It was designed by SGI for their video rendeing workstations back in the >> day and used very aggressive caching to get enormous throughput. It was >> also brilliant at dealing with directories containing thousands of small >> files - not unusual when dealing with video editing. >> >> However, it was also designed for environments where the power is >> guaranteed to never go off (which explains why they decided to go with >> such aggressive caching). If you use it in environments where powerouts >> are not guaranteed to not happen, well...... > > Well what? It's no less reliable than other filesystems that employ > delayed allocation (any modern filesystem worth of note). Over recent > years, I use both XFS and ext4 extensively in production and have > found the former trumps the latter in reliability. > > While I like them both, I predicate this assertion mainly on some of > the silly bugs that I have seen crop up in the ext4 codebase and the > unedifying commentary that has occasionally ensued. From reading the > XFS list and my own experience, I have formed the opinion that the > maintainers are more stringent in matters of QA and regression testing > and more mature in matters of public debate. I also believe that > regressions in stability are virtually unheard of, whereas regressions > in performance are identified quickly and taken very seriously [1]. > > The worst thing I could say about XFS is that it was comparatively > slow until the introduction of delayed logging (an idea taken from > ext3). [2] [3]. Nowadays, it is on a par with ext4 and, in some cases, > scales better. It is also one of the few filesystems besides ZFS that > can dynamically allocate inodes. > <<SNIP>> > --Kerin > > [1] > http://www.percona.com/blog/2012/03/15/ext4-vs-xfs-on-ssd/#comment-903938 > [2] > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt > [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw > >
The point I was making in my comment was about if the power fails without a proper shutdown. When I used it a long time ago, it worked fine, until there was a sudden power loss. That is when problems pop up. If a person has a UPS, should be good to go. Dale :-) :-)
