shane at hathawaymix.org
Thu Sep 1 22:50:47 MDT 2005
Andrew McNabb wrote:
> I've used ext2/3 for the most part, and I've never had any big problems,
> but I'm always open to new stuff.
Last year, I worked on a project that required a write speed of 50-100
MB/s, sustained, for up to 30 minutes. It helped that we used RAID 0
over 4 drives, but even in that configuration the system couldn't
sustain the required write speed. Software vs. hardware RAID made no
difference. Then we experimented with filesystems. ext2 failed pretty
early, and reiserfs failed intermittently, but XFS passed the test with
flying colors. We were going to try raw partitions, but since XFS
worked so well for this application, we never got around to it. We also
didn't try JFS.
Note that the XFS in SuSE's kernel (we used SLES, the "enterprise"
version) was extremely crashy. XFS in a vanilla kernel (188.8.131.52 at the
time) was far more stable. Also, I noticed that mounting a 1 TB XFS
partition takes only a second or two, while reiserfs sometimes takes
about a minute at that size.
(Tangent: I find Linus' kernels to be much more stable than distribution
kernels; anyone else have the same experience? This is contrary to the
wisdom I hear on the net. Maybe it's because I configure the kernel for
specific machines rather than throw in every driver available.)
The only downside to XFS that I've seen so far is that if you run out of
space while writing a large file, XFS drops the excess data on the floor
and doesn't notify the application that there's a problem until the
application tries to close the file. That's often too late, and AFAIK
it violates the POSIX standard. Other than that, I really like XFS for
large files. I'm using it for MythTV at home.
> I've always had negative feelings towards Reiser FS, and I'm not sure
> whether it's just misguided prejudice or if it's really justified. I've
> heard at least a couple of horror stories, and I've gotten the feeling
> that stability isn't a top goal. Is it still this way, or has it never
> been this way, or has it improved?
I've used ReiserFS (v3) often and I can't think of any time I've lost
data on a ReiserFS partition, even on some very flaky hard drives I have
at work. I've seen visibly better boot times with ReiserFS vs. ext3.
If you use Gentoo, /usr/portage definitely belongs in a ReiserFS
partition, because "emerge sync" runs an order of magnitude faster that
way, compared with ext3. Also from experience.
As always, YMMV!
More information about the PLUG