[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-user
Subject:    Re: ReiseFS vs XFS
From:       Rob Benton <rob.benton () conwaycorp ! net>
Date:       2005-09-26 17:33:25
Message-ID: 4338417A.9080406 () conwaycorp ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Alvin Oga wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Rob Benton wrote:
>>
>>>I've lost data and a whole partition using xfs.  I wouldn't call it 
>>>stable.  I use reiser now.
> 
> 
> XFS *is* stable now, as long as you don't do a "don't do that" thing like
> two MDs on top of each other (to get RAID0+1) and then apply LVM on top of
> it :-)  But for XFS it still remains the truth that you better be keeping up
> with the stable kernels (2.6.13.2 right now), buglets are still being found
> here and there, while ext3 is even more stable (but buglets still show up
> every few releases).
> 
> Also, XFS guarantees data (as oposed to *meta*data, which is the filesystem
> structures) *only* after a fsync or sync returns.  Ext3 guarantees it
> always (and thus, cannot help but be slower than XFS for non sync
> operations).
> 
> I have no idea about raiser3.
> 

If I remember right I was using sarge with kernel 2.6.11 and X locked up 
on me.  I can't remember if I killed it from a virtual terminal and then 
rebooted or if I had to hard reboot.  But I wasn't able to recover from 
that.  It was my desktop machine and just using a plain old HD (no RAID 
or LVM).  What really turned me off from XFS though, was that I got no 
response on the mailing list even though it seemed pretty active.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]