Lennart Sorensen wrote: >I recently migrated to ext3 from xfs since 2.6.10 and lower at least >would regularly leak enough memory that the system ran out of memory. > >That is on a system using md raid1 on two sata drives, with lvm on top, >running xfs in a couple of LVs. It is now all ext3 and I haven't had a >problem since, and the performance of the filesystem has gone up by an >awful lot. I didn't think it was really that bad before, but now I >realize just how slowly it was performing. > >I hope someday the XFS code becomes usable in the mainstream kernel. > >
XFS is by far the best file system supported by Linux but only when it works. For complex installations, like yours, XFS might not be the best choice. I consider it under development where one version might work while another might blow up the file system. But performance wise, on a normal device, xfs is by far the fastest and much more compact. I know that from my experience, df reported 6/20G used when using xfs, but 10/20G used when I just moved the file system to ext3. The caveat is that xfs, between and for some kernel releases, is not yet nearly as stable as ext3. - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
