On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:31:12AM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 14:20 +0100, Peter Kjellström wrote: > > 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. > > +1 > > > Short answer: no XFS is not better than ext3 here. > > +1 We'll all move to ext4 with CentOS 6. ext4 is a big improvement > over the options available in CentOS 5 > > > 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). > > +1 > > Although equivalent issues can arise in XFS [vs. ext3]. > <http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com/2010/09/xfs-inodes.html> > > > > 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) > > I'd stick with ext3 unless you have a compelling reason to use another > FS. > > > > 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). Has anyone an update or status for issues raised in http://lwn.net/Articles/322823/ or T'so's response to the issue https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781/comments/45 have all the apps been adjusted, or is ext4 still more vulnerable to data loss than ext3? Could link to a reference? -- Charles Polisher