I believe Florin Andrei had a typo in his message. No other file system will be as reliable as *XFS*. I've had XFS recover from system failures that Ext3 would/could not recover from. If you want dependability, reliability, and also large file systems, only use XFS. You'll find none better. You should also be using the 64 bit kernels as well, but then, you want that for a whole lot other reasons anyways.
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brent L. Bates blbates@vigyan.com wrote:
I believe Florin Andrei had a typo in his message. No other file systemwill be as reliable as *XFS*. I've had XFS recover from system failures that Ext3 would/could not recover from. If you want dependability, reliability, and also large file systems, only use XFS.
Have you also had emacs write files where vim would not? Have you had qmail deliver where postfix would not? I mean, if you're going to attempt to start a holy war here in the mailing list, why stop at just filesystems :-P
I believe XFS has some very good points where ext3 definitely lacks. That said, on RHEL/CentOS with the 4k stack compilation, xfs on x86 systems where you were using an abstraction layer (lvm, software raid, etc) xfs could get angry with you pretty quickly. EXT3 is widely regarded as being more stable than others over the long-term, which is why it's the default for a number of distros. Personal experiences may vary.
Jim Perrin wrote:
Personal experiences may vary.
Yup. Do your own tests, involving your particular situation, then draw conclusions. The average may just not apply very well in your case.
-
Brent L. Bates -
Florin Andrei -
Jim Perrin