Re: How do I pick the best fs?

[Paul Furness <paul.furness@vil.ite.mee.com>]

Hmm, I can see I've opened a sacred cow... ;)

Thanks, everyone, for comments and experiences. Admittedly, I still
haven't decided, but the small amount of testing / experience I have had
suggests that reiserfs is definately faster than Ext3. Most of these
tests have been on my workstation, and have been far from scientific.
However, I can't say that I've lost data with either file system. I
haven't needed to do much with fsck, though.

Having said that, I don't expect I'll be needing to use fsck a lot; this
is not because I have any illusions about "it won't happen to me" but
more because I've designed the system from the start using new hardware
with lots of redundancy in it (dual PSU on both the disk array and the
server, dual CPU in the server, UPS powering the whole collection and
all the disks are in a hardware RAID array).  

XFS is very much an unknown to me, and I'm not sure if I can use it
fully anyway: I'm slightly constrained because I need to use Samba to
share the file systems as well as NFS. I'm not yet clear on whether the
acl feature of XFS will work with samba; if it won't, then the main
reason for picking XFS over the others evaporates and the field is again
level. In that case, reiserfs probably has a slight edge because I've
actually used it in anger (on my workstation) for a good couple of
months and it certainly seems quicker than Ext3.


The jury is still out on this; I'd still welcome any thoughts anyone
else wants to add.

Thanks again,

Paul.


-- 
Paul Furness

Systems Manager
Visual Information Lab
Mitsubsihi Electric ITE BV
Guildford, UK
 __________________________________________________________
|  Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/  |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~