On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Kerin Millar <kerfra...@fastmail.co.uk> wrote: > From reading the XFS list and my own experience, I have formed the > opinion that the maintainers are more stringent in matters of QA and > regression testing and more mature in matters of public debate.
That doesn't surprise me. One of the best tools for QA testing any filesystem is xfs_test, which was, as is obvious from the name, developed to stress xfs. I know the btrfs devs use it heavily, though it doesn't test all the more modern features of btrfs like snapshotting, reflinks, send/receive, and so on. I know the whole lkml debate about data=ordered didn't thrill me all that much. I'm a firm believer that no filesystem should eat your data if it doesn't cleanly unmount. I don't have a problem with losing the last n seconds of changes because of write caching. What I do have a problem with is when after a crash a file contains something other than the previous contents or the new contents, especially if a failed append to a file ends up zeroing out the whole file or some nonsense like that. > It is also one of the few filesystems besides ZFS that can dynamically > allocate inodes. > FWIW, btrfs also dynamically allocates inodes. ZFS and btrfs are fairly comparable in terms of capabilities, with each now having a few features the other lacks. Btrfs is definitely less mature though. -- Rich
