Nick Webb wrote: > I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= > 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is > the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a > 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, > so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. > > > XFS is good, we use it on dapper all the time. My largest XFS filesystem is 5.5TB formatted. I have to say 64-bit is the only way to go for this - the xfs repair tools can't handle larger filesystems in 32bit mode. btw, one thing I found was that xfs_repair can chew massive amounts of ram to run a repair on a filesystem. I had a 2TB fs take nearly 8gb of ram (and swap) to repair it. It did a good job of repairing, and took ages. So XFS is not free of the fsck problem, just xfs_check is faster and perhaps less thorough (dunno).
Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have noticed they go to zero size, whereas in messy situations with ext3 I have noticed you are more likely to loose metadata than data. I still would stick with XFS anyday though, even just because the sheer increase in format time. I have had good results on many different types of block devices as well. thanks dave -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
