On 06/09/2014 14:48, Dale wrote: > James wrote: >> Joseph <syscon780 <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Thank you for the information. >>> I'll continue on Monday and let you know. If it will not boot with sector >> starting at 2048, I will >>> re-partition /boot sda1 to start at 63. >> >> Take some time to research and reflect on your needs (desires?) >> about which file system to use. (ext 2,4) is always popular and safe. >> Some are very happy with BTRFS and there are many other interesting >> choices (ZFS, XFS, etc etc)...... >> >> There is no best solution; but the EXT family offers tried and proven >> options. YMMV. >> >> >> hth, >> James >> > > I'm not sure if it is ZFS or XFS but I seem to recall one of those does > not like sudden shutdowns, such as a power failure. Maybe that has > changed since I last tried whichever one it is that has that issue. If > you have a UPS tho, shouldn't be so much of a problem, unless your power > supply goes out.
XFS. It was designed by SGI for their video rendeing workstations back in the day and used very aggressive caching to get enormous throughput. It was also brilliant at dealing with directories containing thousands of small files - not unusual when dealing with video editing. However, it was also designed for environments where the power is guaranteed to never go off (which explains why they decided to go with such aggressive caching). If you use it in environments where powerouts are not guaranteed to not happen, well...... ZFS is the most resilient filesystem I've ever used, you can through the bucket and kitchen sink at it and it really doesn't give a shit (it just deals with it :-) ) > > Just a little heads up in case it matters. > > Oh, I use ext2 for /boot and ext4 for everything else, some of that on > top of LVM. I switched from reiserfs a good while back, bit rot. So > far, I been really pleased with ext4. Yeah, that's a pretty normal default setup, it performs well across the boards for average desktop and server loads -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
