Hi Paul Robert Marino! On 2013.03.18 at 08:55:39 -0400, Paul Robert Marino wrote next:
> I've used XFS for over a decade now. Its the most reliable crash resistant > filesystem I've ever used according to all my tests and experience. But I have This might be true, but it's not the case for all. I've experienced very bad corruptions on xfs myself, resulting in lots of non-accessible fake files (random size, attributes etc) with random filenames including non-printable characters - and there was no way to remove them, fsck refused to fix them, too. Filesystem was in total mess and producing various errors - it's fortunate that I was able to copy all real data without corruption from it, though. Since then I try not to approach xfs without serious reason. I'd rather use JFS for huge filesystem which I've been using for many years until ext4 appeared.. But for fs >16 Tb jfs is still best option, I believe (far more stable in my experience compared to xfs, though might be not as fast). For several reasons most people don't consider JFS but I used it on tons of servers for filesystems > 1 Tb (ext3 was a bad choice for huge filesystems for various reasons) and never had a single issue with it. At most, after multiple power failures during heavy write access I had errors which remounted it into R/O mode and fsck always fixed it. > By the way I know why the performance goes down on NFS4 its mostly due to the > fact that it supports xattribs natively and ext3 does not unless you > explicitly > turn it on when you mount the file system. I don't really understand your implication: xfs is slower *due* to xattr support? So if I will mount ext4 with user_xattr option, NFS4 from it will become slower? How come? -- Vladimir
