Kent Borg wrote:
I have seen others talking about ext4 being terribly unreliable. I didn't know that. If these are reproducible problems, it seems someone should put in a good bug report. Linus must think it works if he lets it in the kernel.
It's that ext4 was end of life the moment Theodore Ts'o checked in the code so it doesn't have the kind of head-on development that Btrfs and XFS have.
I have seen mention of btfs in this thread. When I first heard about it I was very excited but concluded (was told) it was not ready for primetime. Mostly the userspace tools were behind. Certainly things have
They've been drastically improved in the past years and they continue to be improved. Btrfs itself still has problems, mostly edge cases like dying ungracefully if a volume fills up, so while it's entirely usable it does require active monitoring. That's what makes it not quite ready for prime time. If bitwise data integrity in a large scale production environment is a necessity and the coin flip is between Btrfs and ZFS then I recommend ZFS. It's the more mature, more stable of the two at this time.
Regarding partition layouts, I don't bother with them any more beyond a small /boot partition. All other file systems are under some kind of volume manager that permits dynamic allocation and sizing.
-- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
