[GRLUG] WMNTUG Windows 7 Meeting

[Bob Kline]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam at whitemice.org
> wrote:

> > > Yes, these questions can be about as
> > > annoying to answer as "how are you?",
> > > or "What's up?"  But helpful to some of
> > > us.
> > Just to throw in my 2 cents...  ext3 tends to be the most widely
> > tested of the Linux filesystems, and has the most capable fsck.  Other
> > filesystems may be a few seconds faster in one way or another, but if
> > you care about your data actually being there when you need it,
> > there's no safer choice on Linux than ext3.
>
> We used to be an XFS shop,  but with dir_index the single biggest
> performance plus of XFS was gone [at least for us], and ext3 is better
> supported with a richer tool chain.    Of course xfs.fsck is much faster
> - it doesn't actually do anything [it admits that right in the man
> page].  The equivalent is xfs_check / xfs_repair which depending on the
> options and filesystem size can take some time to run.
>
> For productive systems I'm more comfortable with ext3 at this point -
> and it provides an upgrade path to ext4 which provides all the
> advantages of XFS [most notably: extents]
>
> If you have solid hardware and a UPS run ext3 as
> "noatime,data=writeback" and you'll probably get nearly equivalent
> performance.  And an external journal helps, just as with XFS.
>
>
"Of course xfs.fsck is much faster
- it doesn't actually do anything."

Quite a mouthful, and a reminder
of the potential pitfalls of comparisons.

Much harder is to ensure that one is
actually talking about equivalent value.

Interesting points.

    -- Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20090917/4e8c6047/attachment.htm