On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Laurent Wandrebeck l.wandrebeck@gmail.com wrote:
Outside more up-to-date question, here is my own experience with jfs/xfs. The bigger the files with JFS, the slower it is. XFS tends to get similar performance, whatever the filesize is. I've had data corruption with both. The thing is, I don't know where it comes from with JFS, with XFS *do* *not* *ever* run a box without an UPS. Unclean shutdown will always eat some of your data. I've been happy with ext3 (no data corruption ever happened) but its speed is behind the first two.
Supposedly ext3 has sped up with the 2.6 kernels.
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
The only thing I don't like about ext3 is the fsck. On relatively small filesystems, it's an annoyance. But on huge filesystem, 500-1000GB, a system may take a long, long time to come back up.