I would suggest ( on linux anyway ) that you stick with ext3 unless it is incapable of handling your pool data until ext4 is marked stable. Then look at btfs or tux3 and see what their roadmaps say. ext3 is a good filesystem. It is fast and reliable. XFS and JFS are ports from other systems and have not had the same attention given too them. I would note that you dont see threads that say "ext3 corrupted my data" or "ext3 too slow" very much but you do see this for XFS and JFS.
Last year I would have suggested reiserfs because it is also a very good filesystem, especially for small files and deletes like backuppc needs) but its unclear future stears me away from it. On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Anand Gupta <anand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Chris Robertson <crobert...@gci.net>wrote: > >> dan wrote: >> > If the disk usage is the same as before the pool, the issue isnt >> > hardlinks not being maintained. I am not convinced that XFS is an >> > ideal filesystem. I'm sure it has it's merits, but I have lost data >> > on 3 filesystems ever, FAT*, XFS and NTFS. I have never lost data on >> > reiserfs3 or ext2,3. >> > >> > Additionally, I am not convinced that it performs any better than ext3 >> > in real world workloads. I have see many comparisons showing XFS >> > marginally faster in some operations, and much faster for file >> > deletions and a few other things, but these are all simulated >> > workloads and I have never seen a comparison running all of these >> > various operations in mixed operation. how about mixing 100MB random >> > reads with 10MB sequential writes on small files and deleting 400 >> > hardlinks? >> > >> > I say switch back to ext3. >> >> Creating or resizing (you do a proper fsck before and after resizing, >> don't you?) an ext3 filesystem greater than about 50GB is painful. The >> larger the filesystem, the more painful it gets. Having to guess the >> number of inodes you are going to need at filesystem creation is a nice >> bonus. >> >> EXT4, btrfs, or Tux3 can't get here (and stable!) fast enough. >> > > Has anyone tried JFS ? I have been using JFS in production for over a year > now with several volumes of 2T+. I have found the performance satisfactory > atleast for my needs. Besides once in a while when someone pulls the plug of > a switch (the volumes serve iscsi volumes), we have to run fsck, which again > is very fast and recovers without any problems. Just a thought. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Anand > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > BackupPC-users mailing list > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net > List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users > Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net > Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
