Ira Abramov wrote: > > time to reconsidder XFS I guess? I never used it before. Is is better at > recovering from crashes than ext3? journaling and all, I had it > sometimes come up in a bad, barely recoverable state after a crash. > > What I heard was that Reiser, XFS, and if I remember correctly also JFS, only journal the metadata (cluster locations, time modifications etc.), while EXT3 journals everything, making it, potentially, more reliable.
Then again, I also heard that most IDE drives and several SATA and SCSI drives will lie to the OS about "write operation successfully finished to disk" (while, in fact, data is still in the hard disk's cache). Add to that the fact that power going down unequally throughout the computer can cause the hard disk to keep writing junk after the CPU has already shut off, and you get the fact that it's close to impossible to make sure that data is never lost. Personally, after having been burnt by Reiser a few times, I use EXT3. XFS had several appealing points to me, but after reading the info in the first paragraph I decided to go with less sophisticated but more reliable. On a related note, my Debian account manager (when I was applying to become a Debian developer) had to run a huge mail farm for a client with an assured maximal response time. They tested everything they could, and eventually went for EXT2, which was the only thing that lived up to that response time. Just a thought. Shachar ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
