On 12/13/2014 at 02:45 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >> I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER >> had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice >> thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 >> seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't >> actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO >> quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat >> there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I >> don't. > > If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)
What are the downsides of xfs, in overview summary form? Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context which struck me as reliable. Beyond just xfs, I'd also be interested in the same sort of information (downsides - or more like really trade-offs - and suitability for general-purpose use) for other not-so-typical filesystems. I've never been entirely happy with just defaulting to extX for most filesystems every time I build a new machine, but the last time I did a build with something else it was reiserfs, and that wound up having problems in the long run - not to mention ending up relatively unsupported, AFAIK, given the fate of its namesake and primary developer. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
