Dave Hall wrote: > ... > There are many issues with ReiserFS, which has only been exacerbated by > the incarceration of its creator.
Even before Hans Reiser was arrested, reiserfs v3 was still largely unchanged for quite some time. > ... > I stopped using ReiserFS for any thing where data integrity was an > issue, after once too often having to recover 100s of Gb from lost > +found, a painstakingly slow process. XFS on the other hand is rock > solid, I have a couple of Tb sitting XFS filesystems just in my home > office alone, and many more on client production system. I have also > seen XFS running on very very large filesystems. It hasn't missed a > beat. I started using XFS on my backup drives about 2 years ago when i heard that it was good for very large file systems. I have not been impressed. Every time i've put XFS on an external USB or eSATA drive (which is what i use for my backups), i have had a severe corruption resulting in backup data loss, at least once every 3-6 months. The most recent was earlier this week. XFS check and repair times are hideously long on these drives. I don't know why this is, but it could be something to do with the Linux/Irix translation layer that XFS requires, or it could be something to do with the very large number of hard links in my backup file system (i use rsnapshot). Regardless, i intend to get rid of my XFS file systems as soon as my new 1 TB backup disks arrive :-). Disclaimer: I have nothing against XFS in principle. I just haven't had good reliability from it. Paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- ubuntu-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
