On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:34:14AM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
> Carlos Carvalho wrote:
>
>> I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A
>> simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large
>> files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the kernel
>> tree) is faster with reiser3.
>
> My current main concern about XFS and reiser3 is writebacks. The default  
> mode for ext3 is "journal," which in case of power failure is more  
> robust than the writeback modes of XFS, reiser3, or JFS -- or so I'm  
> given to understand.
>
> On the other hand, I have a UPS and it should shut down gracefully  
> regardless if there's a power failure. I wonder if I'm being too 
> cautious?

I'm not sure what your actual worry is. It's not like XFS loses
*commited* data on power failure. It may lose data that was never
required to go to disk via fsync()/fdatasync()/sync. If someone is
losing data on power failure is the unprotected write cache of the
harddrive.

If you have properly-behaved applications, then they know when to do an
fsync and if XFS returns success on fsync and your linux is properly
configured (no write-back caches on drives that are not backed by NVRAM,
etc.) then you won't lose data.

regards,
iustin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to