On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu at orgfarm.uu.se> wrote: > Vandaman <> scribbled on Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:31 PM: > >>> And I am sure there >>> are usecase's where Jfs is a better option than Xfs. >>> >>> Does this help answer the question ? > > So which fs is preferred when, any rule of thumb one should know of? Pointers > gratefully accepted. > There are too many factors involved to make a generic, rule-of-thumb decision on this. Among other things, your particular hardware setup may have a lot to do with it. When I was working at Datallegro, we were looking at these two for two major reasons: one is that they reputedly handle huge files better than other file systems, the other that they handle huge i/os to large files better than o.f.s. (For us, then, a 5TB database was tiny, and our i/os routinely ran into multiple GB per i/o. We were balancing cached vs direct i/o, elevator algorithms, compressed vs. uncompressed, and all the other architectural factors that came together at the performance bottleneck.) However, we had complications because we were using fiber-channel storage and the xfs support (or version) wasn't so good, so we wound up using jfs as an interim solution solely because its performance and reliability over the fiber channel was better than anything else we tried. We also had specific needs w.r.t. compression capability and need for long sequential writes to files and a host of other conditions. So, your situation is the real determining factor. If it's important enough to your place of employment, do a study to see what works best for you and go with that. Otherwise, I'd say just stick with ext3 as long as that works for you. HTH. mhr