On Friday 03 December 2010 13:55:28 Keith Roberts wrote: > There was a similar thread about which is the best FS for > Centos. > > I'm using ext3, and wondered if XFS would be more 'data > safe' than ext3. 'data safe' is certainly not something easy to define. Short answer: no XFS is not better than ext3 here. Longer answer: Both are journaled, ext3 typically pushes data to disk quicker, neither are check-summed, ext3 is more widely used, neither does replication, XFS has some corner cases (I have seen strangeness with very full filesystems and also it's not recommended for 32- bit CentOS). In the end the only thing that'll keep your data safe are backups. > I had a 100GiB ext3 partition, and it took up 1.75GiB for FS > administration purposes. I reformatted it to XFS, and it > only used 50.8MB! Oversimplified: XFS sets data structures up as you go, ext3 does it from start. Also, the default for ext3 is to reserve space (see the -m option). > I now have a fresh new drive to install my root Centos > system onto, and wondered about creating the partitions > as XFS? ext3 is default => extremely well tested => good choice (IMHO) > What about the XFS admin tools - do these get installed when > you format a partition as XFS from anaconda, or are they a > seperate rpm package, installed later? They are in a separate rpm (xfsprogs, repository: extras). /Peter -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20101203/46ab9236/attachment-0005.sig>