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

[Chris Allen <chris@cjx.com>]

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.