On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:48:56 -0800 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
Timo Schoeler wrote:
For enterprise environments my favorite FS is XFS, YMMV, though.
I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in RHEL anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic loss problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what have you
is B) no longer an issue?
You get horror stories about anything, depending on which people you ask. For example, where reiserfs was supposed to eat data left and right some years ago, I had 6 data losing crashes on ext3 and 0 with reiserfs. On same machine, same disks, so same conditions. Go figure.
I wanna know how come JFS/JFS2 (originally from IBM) isn't more popular in the linux world? At least as implemented in AIX, its rock stable, journaling, excellent performance, and handles both huge files and lots of tiny files without blinking. jfs2 handles really huge file systems, too. I really like how, in AIX, the VM and FS tools are coordinated, so expanding and reorganizing file systems is trivial, nearly as simple as Sun's ZFS.
AFAIK AIX JFS != Linux JFS. It's more like OS/2 JFS and IBM ported it to linux to enable their os/2 customers to move to linux.
Also whenever fs reliability discussion pops up I like to point people to this paper: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/wind/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf Tables on page 8 are most amusing. Also shows which filesystems were developed in an academic world and which were engineered in a real world ;)