Ah... But I can go between ext2 and ext3 no problem. I'm not trying to
knock XFS but turning off journaling on partitions that just don't need it
would be a very nice option. That and the fact that ext3 is really just
ext2 (highly proven) with journaling added on.
In the workstation environment (such as I'm gearing up for) I'm going to
stick with ext2 and ext3 for simplicities sake. I will keep XFS in mind for
the next server need I come across.
Chris Short, SrA USAF
shortc@centcom.mil
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew M Hoerter [mailto:amh@pobox.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:05 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Filesystems
On Mon, 28 April 2003 A.D., Short SrA Christopher wrote:
> Ext3 will probably be my filesystem of choice due to its maturity and
> ample amount of support.
Just thought I'd point out that ext3 is far from the most mature journaled
FS available. SGI's XFS and IBM's JFS are older and better tested. I'm not
sure whether ReiserFS came before ext3 or not.
Out of all the journaled filesystems available, I'm partial to XFS myself,
having had long experience with it. SGI's most important customers provided
the basis for many of the features that XFS has, such as guaranteed
sustained I/O performance (think writing huge amounts of time sensitive
video data). And since SGI acquired part of Cray, XFS has found its way into
HPC environments too. It's well-proven.
Not to knock JFS either, it's a perfectly decent filesystem. I'd take
either XFS or JFS before ext3 or ReiserFS, to be honest. For a workstation
it probably doesn't matter, but in production... I'm careful about what I
trust with my data.
BTW, one feature to look for in a journaled filesystem is the option of
keeping the log within the filesystem, or on a separate disk. The latter is
critical for performance, and the former is nice to simplify administration.
XFS supports both.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:40:42 EDT