On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:48:56 -0800 John R Pierce <pierce at 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 ;) -- Jure Pečar http://jure.pecar.org http://f5j.eu