From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Boldi Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison? Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:32:54 +0300 Message-ID: <200509181426.33327.a1426z@gawab.com> References: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com> <200509162258.37730.a1426z@gawab.com> <432D3024.3080302@dtbb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <432D3024.3080302@dtbb.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tyler Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux RAID Mailing List , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids Tyler wrote: > Al Boldi wrote: > >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. > > Al... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go > along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more > specific info as to what/why. see 'XFS corruption on power-blackout' thread > >XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. Highest performance ratio available due to low CPU usage. > >reiser4 is still new. New, but promising. > >ext3 is rock-solid! Low performance ratio due to high CPU usage. -- Al