Re: Large single raid and XFS or two small ones and EXT3?

[Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>]

Chris Allen wrote:
> Francois Barre wrote:
> > 2006/6/23, PFC <lists@peufeu.com>:
> >>         - XFS is faster and fragments less, but make sure you have a
> >> good UPS
> >
> > Why a good UPS ? XFS has a good strong journal, I never had an issue
> > with it yet... And believe me, I did have some dirty things happening
> > here...
> >
> >>         - ReiserFS 3.6 is mature and fast, too, you might consider it
> >>         - ext3 is slow if you have many files in one directory, but
> >> has more
> >> mature tools (resize, recovery etc)
> >
> > XFS tools are kind of mature also. Online grow, dump, ...
> >
> >>         I'd go with XFS or Reiser.
> >
> > I'd go with XFS. But I may be kind of fanatic...
>
> Strange that whatever the filesystem you get equal numbers of people
> saying that they have never lost a single byte to those who have had 
> horrible corruption and would never touch it again. We stopped using XFS 
> about a year ago because we were getting kernel stack space panics under 
> heavy load over NFS. It looks like the time has come to give it another
> try.

If you are keen on data integrity then don't touch any fs w/o data=ordered.

ext3 is still king wrt data=ordered, albeit slow.

Now XFS is fast, but doesn't support data=ordered.  It seems that their 
solution to the problem is to pass the burden onto hw by using barriers.  
Maybe XFS can get away with this.  Maybe.

Thanks!

--
Al