On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:16, Jeff Waugh wrote: > XFS is a long-standing filesystem that has been used on OS/2 and IRIX. It is > especially good for high throughput applications, such as media work (which > is not surprising given SGI's market). Metadata only journalling, scales > incredibly well with multiple CPUs (even under 2.4) and includes POSIX ACLs > (even under 2.4), which are kind of cool if you're using recent versions of > SAMBA and serving up to Windows PCs. XFS also supports a realtime partition > type, which is designed to guarantee very high throughput rates for the most > demanding applications (though it will be a while before this is fully > supported in Linux).
Right, and since XFS is meta-data journalling (like reiser), you have no more protection of data integrity than with reiserfs. I have reiser on my laptop, and xfs on my desktop machine. As you can image, the laptop loses power far more often than the desktop machine does, yet I haven't been able to find a situation where I've been able to convince reiser to randomly fill my files with NULL characters. I can't say the same for XFS, which has trashed a postgres database, my modules.conf file, my initrd.img file, and other useful files. I can't tell you how happy I am that my home directory is mounted on NFS these days. Your assertions about XFS having recovery tools are right though - I hear they're very good, but I've never used them. I can see that that's a compelling reason to choose XFS. It has been my experience though that reiser has handled the more garden-variety power failures far better than XFS. Just my experiences - I've not run either on SMP boxes or as an NFS server. James. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
