Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: the best filesystem for you is the one you have tested and found best suits your needs. I agree with that part of what you said (which is why I've stuck with ext3 for so long), but the rest may have been a tad harsh. -- ...she kept arranging and rearranging the rabbit and kind of waving to it. I decided, this is the person I want to sit next to.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Wednesday 23 March 2011 14:04:23 Mr. Jarry wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. Knowing nothing about barriers I tried to find some info and came accross this article: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-Linux-f ile-system-barriers It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, I could not use barriers... Jarry md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is such a can of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. What is wrong with LVM? I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. It does what it says on the box. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Thursday 24 March 2011 08:49:52 J. Roeleveld wrote: On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Wednesday 23 March 2011 14:04:23 Mr. Jarry wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. Knowing nothing about barriers I tried to find some info and came accross this article: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-L inux-f ile-system-barriers It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, I could not use barriers... Jarry md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is such a can of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. What is wrong with LVM? I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. It does what it says on the box. it is another layer that can go wrong. Why take the risk? There are enough cases of breakage after upgrades - and besides snapshots... is the amount of additional code running really worth it? Especially with bind mounting?
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On 22/03/11 19:22, kashani wrote: On 3/22/2011 1:13 AM, Mr. Jarry wrote: Thanks for replies. As I had expected, they brought even more uncertainty then I had before... :-) ext3/4: I excluded them because as I understand, they do not support snapshots (only with lvm, which I do not use, and I've hreard snapshots in lvm are not very effective, or something like that). Next minus-point, I tried resizing of ext3/lvm once in the past and remember it was a real pain in a**... Any Mysql db smaller than 200GB is being backed up by a combination of LVM/Ext3 at a large Internet company with a big purple Y. It's mildly painful to setup, but RHEL uses LVM by default so it's just a matter of resizing to get the partitions you need. Once that's done you can kick off snapshots with very little effort. Not sure where you heard it was ineffective and I'd ignore further information from that source. It goes like this: Reduce: - make fs smaller - make volume smaller to match fs Enlarge - enlarge volume - enlarge fs to match volume Use snapshots - find name of snapshot - mount it somewhere Oh look. Two commands in each case instead of magic hand waving. And you have to think about what you are doing with reduce/enlarge because the order is reversed. Yes, I can truly see why the OP found a comment on them thar intartubes that the whole thing is broken and can't work. Yes, I can really see that now. But considering that the thread is all about what is the best filesystem?, that too is to be expected. The very title belies a lack of understanding - the best filesystem for you is the one you have tested and found best suits your needs. Asking what is the best filesystem? without also supplying an array of metrics and actual performance data is a mind-bogglingly stupid question, along the lines of what is the best girlfriend/wife/SO? -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 08:27:53 Alan McKinnon wrote: But considering that the thread is all about what is the best filesystem?, that too is to be expected. The very title belies a lack of understanding - the best filesystem for you is the one you have tested and found best suits your needs. A filesystem looks like quite hard to test (as a kernel, as an hardware... much more complicated than a software you only need to install) : you need a specific machine to test on it. Which tests/operation to perform ? Before launching tests, maybe asking advices to others to have their experiences would be a great idea ! But I would like really to know : can you give a way to test such things ? (hardware ... quite hard : need to buy before testing, kernel, FS). Best regards -- Stéphane Guedon page web : http://www.22decembre.eu/ carte de visite : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.vcf clé publique gpg : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 08:50:14 Stéphane Guedon wrote: On Wednesday 23 March 2011 08:27:53 Alan McKinnon wrote: But considering that the thread is all about what is the best filesystem?, that too is to be expected. The very title belies a lack of understanding - the best filesystem for you is the one you have tested and found best suits your needs. A filesystem looks like quite hard to test (as a kernel, as an hardware... much more complicated than a software you only need to install) : you need a specific machine to test on it. Which tests/operation to perform ? Before launching tests, maybe asking advices to others to have their experiences would be a great idea ! But I would like really to know : can you give a way to test such things ? (hardware ... quite hard : need to buy before testing, kernel, FS). Best regards no, fs testing is easy. You know what the machine is going to do - so let it do it and measure the time it needs. Easy. That way I found that reiser4+lzo is the best one *for me* and xfs the worst. But I am sure a lot of people have scenarios where xfs is the best. Or ext4. And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. It depends on the stuff you want to do and what do you expect from a file system. Btw, when doing a copy or move test to prime the fs - copy from the same type of filesystem or the numbers are skewed.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. Knowing nothing about barriers I tried to find some info and came accross this article: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-Linux-file-system-barriers It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, I could not use barriers... Jarry
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 14:04:23 Mr. Jarry wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. Knowing nothing about barriers I tried to find some info and came accross this article: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-Linux-f ile-system-barriers It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, I could not use barriers... Jarry md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is such a can of worms I am surprised people still recommend it.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Am 23.03.2011 14:04, schrieb Mr. Jarry: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. Knowing nothing about barriers I tried to find some info and came accross this article: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-Linux-file-system-barriers It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, I could not use barriers... Jarry Kernel changes claim barrier support for DM and MD beginning at 2.6.33 [1]. Some support was also added in 2.6.31, 2.6.30 and 2.6.29. This thread [2] leaves me with the impression that the same patches providing support in DM and MD also solved the issue for LVM. The article you cite might be correct in the context of RHEL-5.5 and SLED-10 which use a much older kernel (2.6.24 if I'm not mistaken). [1] http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_33 [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/326597/ Also interesting: http://lwn.net/Articles/400541/ Hope this helps, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Thanks for replies. As I had expected, they brought even more uncertainty then I had before... :-) ext3/4: I excluded them because as I understand, they do not support snapshots (only with lvm, which I do not use, and I've hreard snapshots in lvm are not very effective, or something like that). Next minus-point, I tried resizing of ext3/lvm once in the past and remember it was a real pain in a**... reiserfs/reiser4: Future of these fs seems to be somehow vague, at least to me. And I do not know if it can handle snaphosts and resizing. xfs power-off: I have always thought, journaling is there to prevent data loss during unexpected power-off. And now I read I could loose data even with journaled fs...? jfs power-off: the same. How is it possible, I could loose data with such a mature journaled filesystem during power-off? btrfs: never heard of it. Is it stable enough to be used? I just checkt man-page of mount, and it does not show btrfs as supported filesystem... Jarry
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:13:48 +0100, Mr. Jarry wrote: ext3/4: I excluded them because as I understand, they do not support snapshots (only with lvm, which I do not use, and I've hreard snapshots in lvm are not very effective, or something like that). Next minus-point, I tried resizing of ext3/lvm once in the past and remember it was a real pain in a**... Resizing LVM and ext3/4 is as easy as it gets lvresize -L+5G /dev/vg/lv resize2fs /dev/vg/lv No need to mess around with cfdisk/fdisk/parted. Also, letting LVM handle snapshots means you have a consistent way of doing things, independent of the filesystem. -- Neil Bothwick WinErr 103: Error buffer overflow - Too many errors encountered. Additional errors may not be displayed or recorded. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On 03/21/2011 08:32:22 PM, Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) I'd like to suggest BTRFS. I know, there is a general warning because it's a new file system. But I haven't found any issues myself nor those being mentioned on the net. I have several machines running BTRFS for all partitions except / (root) since , AFAIK, BTRFS on the root partition needs a patched grub I had crashes (power down and hard reset due to X11 crashes) but my BTRFS files system recover fast and without any glitch. You might have a look at https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page From that The main Btrfs features include: Extent based file storage (2^64 max file size) Space efficient packing of small files Space efficient indexed directories Dynamic inode allocation Writable snapshots Subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots) Object level mirroring and striping Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available) Compression Integrated multiple device support, with several raid algorithms Online filesystem check (not yet implemented) Very fast offline filesystem check Efficient incremental backup and FS mirroring Online filesystem defragmentation BUT, you need a (very) recent kernel. The most recent bad bug when using coreutils-8.10 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353907) has been fixed in the 2.6.38 kernel but not for ext4, yet (AFAIK). Helmut.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Mr. Jarry wrote: Thanks for replies. As I had expected, they brought even more uncertainty then I had before... :-) ext3/4: I excluded them because as I understand, they do not support snapshots (only with lvm, which I do not use, and I've hreard snapshots in lvm are not very effective, or something like that). Next minus-point, I tried resizing of ext3/lvm once in the past and remember it was a real pain in a**... reiserfs/reiser4: Future of these fs seems to be somehow vague, at least to me. And I do not know if it can handle snaphosts and resizing. xfs power-off: I have always thought, journaling is there to prevent data loss during unexpected power-off. And now I read I could loose data even with journaled fs...? jfs power-off: the same. How is it possible, I could loose data with such a mature journaled filesystem during power-off? btrfs: never heard of it. Is it stable enough to be used? I just checkt man-page of mount, and it does not show btrfs as supported filesystem... Jarry This is usually the case, more confusion. Every file system has its strengths and its weaknesses. Here is some info BTRFS: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Multiple_Devices#Current_Status This is what I suggest. Find out which file systems support the snapshot, since that is one thing that you have to have and a lot of file systems don't support it. Then research those to see which one matches your needs the closest. Keep in mind, none of them will be perfect. If you have large files, find out which one handles those best. If you have a lot of small files, which one handles those best. You will always have some trade offs tho. Example, XFS may be perfect but you may have to buy a really good UPS to work with your rig. It may be that EXT4 works best but still lacks something with regard to speed. Just another trade off. Just start with the must haves and work your way down the list until one file system is left. That will likely be your file system. I think the biggest thing, don't expect to find a file system that is perfect. None of them are really. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Am 22.03.2011 09:13, schrieb Mr. Jarry: Thanks for replies. As I had expected, they brought even more uncertainty then I had before... :-) ext3/4: I excluded them because as I understand, they do not support snapshots (only with lvm, which I do not use, and I've hreard snapshots in lvm are not very effective, or something like that). Next minus-point, I tried resizing of ext3/lvm once in the past and remember it was a real pain in a**... Neil already pointed out that resizing is plain easy. Increasing the size online is a matter of seconds. Shrinking needs to be done offline after an `e2fsck -f` but is no problem, either. reiserfs/reiser4: Future of these fs seems to be somehow vague, at least to me. And I do not know if it can handle snaphosts and resizing. Reiserfs-3 supports increasing the size but not shrinking (AFAIK). Performance characteristics are similar to Ext3 in this regard. xfs power-off: I have always thought, journaling is there to prevent data loss during unexpected power-off. And now I read I could loose data even with journaled fs...? Journalling is better suited for system crashes than power failures. Things get especially ugly when you think about write caches in HDDs or RAID controllers. Additionally, the main purpose of journalling is to protect the file system, not the data. Normally, journals only contain metadata changes like space allocations to files but not the actual data written to it. Even good old Ext3 might put random junk at the end of your files when it is mounted with journal=writeback during a crash. This is basically a speed/security tradeoff. When you read up about the various journal options for Ext3, you will understand it better. jfs power-off: the same. How is it possible, I could loose data with such a mature journaled filesystem during power-off? btrfs: never heard of it. Is it stable enough to be used? I just checkt man-page of mount, and it does not show btrfs as supported filesystem... Wikipedia has information about it. Basically, it will be replacement of Ext4. Hope this helps, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:05:27 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: reiserfs/reiser4: Future of these fs seems to be somehow vague, at least to me. And I do not know if it can handle snaphosts and resizing. Reiserfs-3 supports increasing the size but not shrinking (AFAIK). Performance characteristics are similar to Ext3 in this regard. Reiser3 does support shrinking, but not online. XFS doesn't support shrinking under any circumstances. -- Neil Bothwick The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On 3/22/2011 1:13 AM, Mr. Jarry wrote: Thanks for replies. As I had expected, they brought even more uncertainty then I had before... :-) ext3/4: I excluded them because as I understand, they do not support snapshots (only with lvm, which I do not use, and I've hreard snapshots in lvm are not very effective, or something like that). Next minus-point, I tried resizing of ext3/lvm once in the past and remember it was a real pain in a**... Any Mysql db smaller than 200GB is being backed up by a combination of LVM/Ext3 at a large Internet company with a big purple Y. It's mildly painful to setup, but RHEL uses LVM by default so it's just a matter of resizing to get the partitions you need. Once that's done you can kick off snapshots with very little effort. Not sure where you heard it was ineffective and I'd ignore further information from that source. kashani
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Monday 21 March 2011 20:32:22 Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) After a little research I have found two candidates: JFS (created by IBM) jfs = no barriers = not safe for your data. Use something different.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Am 21.03.2011 20:32, schrieb Jarry: resizeable (if possible online) I switched to ext4, it can resize in both direction. Bye Matthias -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning. -- Rich Cook
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Monday 21 March 2011 20:32:22 Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) After a little research I have found two candidates: JFS (created by IBM) XFS (created by SGI) Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: which of them could be better for my need? More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. Or should I consider some different filesystem? Jarry Someone said me reiser (version 3, still stable and maintained). Especially for small files like DB and portage tree. -- Stéphane Guedon page web : http://www.22decembre.eu/ carte de visite : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.vcf clé publique gpg : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) After a little research I have found two candidates: JFS (created by IBM) XFS (created by SGI) Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: which of them could be better for my need? More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. Or should I consider some different filesystem? Jarry If you use XFS, make sure you have a UPS to prevent hard power offs. I used XFS a good while back, every time the power would fail, it was toast. I never did get it to rescue itself and ended up re-installing the OS. It may have changed but that was my experience with XFS. It was fast and nice but it likes normal shutdowns. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: which of them could be better for my need? More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. Or should I consider some different filesystem? No easy to answer, jfs and xfs are both good file systems, that's why I am using both on my server at home. JFS on my root partition and backup storage space (250.000 files of all sizes, 900GB) because it uses very little cpu and is very fast. Low cpu usage was important for me, because my backup space is encrypted with cryptsetup/LUKS. On my media storage (recordings, movies, only big files: 500MB to 15GB) I use xfs because of it's delayed allocation which helps to avoid fragmentation. With xfs_fsr xfs also brings it's own defragmentation utility. Speedwise I would they that they are both at about the same speed, but I cannot give you exact numbers. xfs however uses more memory (because of the delayed allocation) and if your server suddenly loses power you can lose data. Hope that helps you, greetings from germany Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
on 03/21/2011 11:52 PM Dale wrote the following: snip If you use XFS, make sure you have a UPS to prevent hard power offs. I used XFS a good while back, every time the power would fail, it was toast. I second this. My experience with xfs: a good chance you will end up with empty (zero size) files when the power fails (or maybe when it comes back up?). I never did get it to rescue itself and ended up re-installing the OS. Same here. It may have changed I don't think so. but that was my experience with XFS. yea ...The hard way... It was fast and nice Not fast on deletes. On the contrary, it was dead slow. but it likes normal shutdowns. It won't survive otherwise...
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
It was fast and nice Not fast on deletes. On the contrary, it was dead slow. That's about to change [1] - haven't tested it though [1] http://xfs.org/index.php/Improving_Metadata_Performance_By_Reducing_Journal_Overhead
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Am 21.03.2011 20:32, schrieb Jarry: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) After a little research I have found two candidates: JFS (created by IBM) XFS (created by SGI) Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: which of them could be better for my need? More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. Or should I consider some different filesystem? Jarry In the past, I used many different file systems including JFS, ReiserFS-3, Ext2 and Ext3 but excluding XFS (so I won't say anything on that). Now I only ever use Ext4 except for floppies and USB sticks. JFS is a nice system, especially for larger files and resource constrained servers. However, Ext4 has become so much better than Ext3 in perceived performance (especially when handling large files) that I see no reason to use anything but that. While it is still quiet young, it receives the most testing because it is the de-facto standard on most distributions. I personally never had data loss on Ext*, even when handling with unreliable laptops that kept freezing or producing kernel oops. Hope this helps, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) After a little research I have found two candidates: JFS (created by IBM) XFS (created by SGI) Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: which of them could be better for my need? More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. Or should I consider some different filesystem? Jarry If you use XFS, make sure you have a UPS to prevent hard power offs. I used XFS a good while back, every time the power would fail, it was toast. I never did get it to rescue itself and ended up re-installing the OS. It may have changed but that was my experience with XFS. It was fast and nice but it likes normal shutdowns. My anecdotal 2 cents: For JFS, I used it on 2 systems and both were ruined by crash/power-failure, journal replay failed, repair caused millions of of JFS files to be renamed to inode number (or equally as useless filenames). File contents of those were basically okay, but I had no idea what they were or where they came from. Making an index of all files in your system with full path and filename, filesize and hash and storing it on another machine would help to match those files to their original names in the event of a crash. This was about 5 years ago so maybe JFS's crash recovery is more robust now, I don't know because I have avoided it ever since. I used XFS on a drive which had a bad cable and offlined itself in the middle of an operation, it wouldn't mount and fsck didn't fix it, which was scary, but using the xfs tools I was able to repair it enough to mount read-only and copy all my files off to another disk, then replaced the cable and reformatted the bad drive. So XFS got positive marks for being recoverable, negative marks for failing to recover itself. But in the end I was able to get my files in their original names and locations, which was better than JFS. :) Now for the past couple years I use ext4 everywhere and have suffered dozens of crashes and power failures without incident (laptop with dead battery and lack of power management, crazy nvidia-drivers problems on desktop machine, UPS that died during a storm...). For me, ext4 has been unbreakable so far. Fingers crossed. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:32:22PM +0100, Jarry wrote: Hi, I'm looking for the best filesystem for a small multi-purpose server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). For me very important features are: snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) journaling resizeable (if possible online) After a little research I have found two candidates: JFS (created by IBM) XFS (created by SGI) Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: which of them could be better for my need? More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. Or should I consider some different filesystem? Jarry I was using XFS??but the *rm* is a nightmare. so I suggust you to try JFS, if your server need to remove files frequently. but i use ext4/reiserfs now. and the btrfs is worth trying.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
I've been using xfs on a 1tb WD MyBook for storage for about a year now, and even with multiple power failures, it's been fine. It doesn't get written to as much as read to, though, and iirc i have a cron job run sync every half an hour.
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
Jacob Todd wrote: I've been using xfs on a 1tb WD MyBook for storage for about a year now, and even with multiple power failures, it's been fine. It doesn't get written to as much as read to, though, and iirc i have a cron job run sync every half an hour. The cron job is cheating. ROFL Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?)
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Paul Hartman wrote: Now for the past couple years I use ext4 everywhere and have suffered dozens of crashes and power failures without incident (laptop with dead battery and lack of power management, crazy nvidia-drivers problems on desktop machine, UPS that died during a storm...). For me, ext4 has been unbreakable so far. Fingers crossed. :) One more positive mark for ext4. Toshiba laptops have the feature which automatically turns themselves off to protect the hardware if they suffer from overhead. I've been using 2 Toshiba satellites with Gentoo and countless power down incidents (especially when compiling chromium or kdelibs), I use ext4 for all partitions and I've never had a problem losing my data. About the performance comparison, check out [1]Phoronix for more details. [1] http://phoronix.com All the best, Yang -- Dương Yang Hà Nguyễn Web log: http://cmpitg.wordpress.com/ Life is a hack [ Do not send me M$ Office attachments, please. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html ] -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GIT/C/ED/L d++ s-:-(:) !a C+++() ULU$ P-- L+++$ E+++ W+ N+ o+ K w--- O- M@ V- PS+ PE++ Y+++ PGP++ t+ 5 X+ R- tv+ b+++ DI+++ D++ G+++ e* h* r* y- -END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
