From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Boldi Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison? Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:17:08 +0300 Message-ID: <200509162258.37730.a1426z@gawab.com> References: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com> <432A37BF.7060305@dtbb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <432A37BF.7060305@dtbb.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids Tyler wrote: > Ewan Grantham wrote: > >I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was > >prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the > >filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about > >ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough > >to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go? > > You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size > and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider > ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had > really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad > experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it > were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools. Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al