Nikita Kipriyanov:
> DULMANDAKH Sukhbaatar ?????:
> > For me XFS seemed very fast. But usually I use ext3, which is proven
> > to be stable enough for most situations.
> >
> >
> >
> I feel also that xfs if much faster than ext3 and reiserfs, especially
> when it deals with metadata. In some bulk operation (bulk changing
> attributes of ~100000 files) it was approx. 15 times faster than ext3
> (20 sec xfs, 5 min ext3).
>
> xfs's journal covers only metadata, so you probally lose some lastest
> not-synched data on power loss, but you will stay with consistent fs.
Does XFS still overwrite existing files with zeros, when those
files were open for write at the time of unclean shutdown? This
would violate a basic requirement of Postfix (don't lose data after
fsync). Postfix updates existing files all the time: it updates
queue files as it marks recipients as done, and it updates mailbox
files as it appends mail.
Wietse
To: Private List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:10:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [evals] ext3 vs reiser with quotas
[...]
This issue is completely different from the XFS issue of zero'ing
all open files on an unclean shutdown, of course. [..] The reason
why it is done is to avoid a potential security problem, where a
file could be left with someone else's data. Ext3 solves this
problem by delaying the journal commit until the data blocks are
written, as opposed to trashing all open files. Again, it's a
solution which can impact performance, but at least in my opinion,
for a filesystem, performace is Job #2. Making sure you don't lose
data is Job #1.
