From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Allen Subject: Re: Large single raid and XFS or two small ones and EXT3? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <449BE381.6070000@cjx.com> References: <449AEB7C.6040108@cjx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Francois Barre Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Francois Barre wrote: > 2006/6/23, PFC : >> >> - 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.