On Tuesday 25 November 2008 19:57:19 Paul Hartman wrote: > I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will > never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file > server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over > and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, > I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.)
Sounds like you used JFS in a case it was not designed for. XFS for instance can be best described as "a filesystem that does aggressive caching, so if you install it you need to guarantee that it will never lose power, i.e. use a UPS". It's OK for SGI to have done this, considering the kind of rendering clusters they were running it on. Use it outside that viewpoint and hey, JMMV. JFS will have it's own specific "best use" scenario The reiser stories are just that, horror stories from years ago. Then it was beta software, it is not beta any more. I've used it for over 4 years now on every machine I have and suffered no data loss that was not directly because of me being stupid. I don't think I can blame Hans if I run fsck with the wrong options at the wrong time :-) > I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about > every filesystem. yes, very much so. Much more so than for any other kind of driver by my experience. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
