Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 at 4:41pm, Kirk Bocek wrote > >> Now that I've been enlightened to the terrible write performance of >> ext3 on my new 3Ware RAID 5 array, I'm stuck choosing an alternative >> filesystem. I benchmarked XFS, JFS, ReiserFS and ext3 and they came >> back in that order from best to worst performer. >> >> I'm leaning towards XFS because of performance and because centosplus >> makes kernel modules available for the stock kernel. >> >> How's the reliability of XFS? It's certainly been around long enough. >> >> Anyone care to sway me one way or another? > > To a large extent it depends on what the FS will be doing. Each have > their strengths. > > That being said, I'd lean strongly towards XFS or JFS. Reiser... > worries me. AIUI, the current incarnation has been largely abandoned > for Reiser4, which is having all sorts of issues getting into the kernel. I would strongly lean away from XFS. JFS appears to be the safest bet and its performance is actually very good on all aspects from benchmarks I have seen. reiser4 is having all sorts of issues getting into the kernel and XFS is having all sorts of issues being maintained. Some kernel developers even went so far as to say that they do not want to have anything to do with XFS. > > I've used XFS for years and had very good luck with it. And some folks > I respect very much here are using JFS on critical systems. Test 'em > both under your presumed workload and go with whatever gives you the > warm fuzzies. > XFS is good until you lose power while the disk subsystem is under load. This was when XFS was in its best form too (around 2.4.18 - 2.4.22). Not many people use JFS but it does actually seem to have the best environment.