From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] JFS or XFS From: Greg Freemyer In-Reply-To: <20040116002242.47690445@souldaemon> References: <20040115231819.49123.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> <20040116002242.47690445@souldaemon> Message-Id: <1074209631.19419.24.camel@david.internal.NorcrossGroup.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Jan 15 18:46:01 2004 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 18:22, neuron wrote: > reiserfs, guaranteed personally. Especially on a mail server. I agree, reiserfs was tuned for handling lots of small files. Sounds perfect for a mail server. > I've used jfs, I crashed it twice on purpose (network swap, then disable network card), both times jfs failed to boot. (this is because it trusts it's own journal, which a lot of people love about it, both times for me it was wrong..) > Personally I haven't had any problems with XFS though, but I haven't used it that much. > If you go with XFS, stay away from anything older than 1.3.1. The 1.2 and prior releases had this really nice feature that they ignored the sync command (and fsync I think). The end result is that with a power outage or kernel lockup you could lose lots of work. I had one failure on a lightly used machine that had a whole days activities still sitting in the OS disk cache when the kernel locked up. This is fixed in 1.3.1, Greg