On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 12:46, Todd Lyons wrote:
> Chevalley, Scott wrote on Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 08:33:51AM -0500 :
> >
> > I've since decided to try EXT3 because it journals the data as well as
>
> not be default. You have to tell it to. Warning: it will be very
> slloooooooooooow.
>
> > the meta-data, while reiserfs only journals the meta-data (I think,
> > that's what I've read).
>
> Why not just JFS which by default journals both data and meta-data?
> Warning: it will be very slloooooooooooow.
After doing my best to break the journaling file systems I have
determined that XFS and ReiserFS are the two more reliable and fast
solutions. I corrupted both JFS and EXT3 to the point I could no longer
boot. My test was to bring the system down dirty repeatedly without
performing a consistency check on boot. In beta3 ReiserFS and XFS are
more durable. XFS is a pretty slow file system unless you're working
with BIG files. Reiser does better with lots of small files (a tad
slower than ext3, but worth it).
I managed to ruin and XFS filesystem as shipped with 8.1. The kernel
patches from SGI are pretty good on a raw kernel or RedHat kernel (I
haven't broken it in such cases). I assume XFS has been upgraded in the
2.4.17+ mdk kernels (haven't looked).
Has anyone published current tests on the file systems on Linux for
durability and speed? My test is hardly comprehensive.
