Re: ReiserFS vs XFS or JFS?

["Jarod Wilson" <user=74@nabble.blu.org>]

 On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 13:00 -0400, Ben Holland wrote: 
> Hah, i've seen so many problems with stability with XFS... JFS I 
> haven't used, but from what i've read it's useful on lots of very 
> large files.... course so would XFS if stability wasn't an issue. 

XFS had what we'll call a "rough patch" in its devel cycle. Supposedly, 
the bulk of the issues have now been resolved and it should be pretty 
stable again. 

(Nb: I regularly work with our main file system guy, Eric Sandeen, who 
is primarily focused on ext3/4 these days during the day, but worked for 
SGI on XFS prior to coming to Red Hat, and he still does a fair amount 
of work on XFS in his own time -- Fedora actually enables XFS by default 
at install time because of work he's done to shore it up). 

>  reiserFS is good with lots of tiny files, however again... some 
> friends of mine have had serious stability problems with resier. ext2 
> is great on a boot partition, ext3 is good (not the best) basically on 
> everything i've seen so far. With tweeks it's very customizable. 

I've seen a fairly large email shop quite happy with ext3 with some 
tweaks to mount options. But I know of an even larger shop where nothing 
but reiser could meet their performance needs, though ext4 is actually 
close now (for their use case)... 

> Also ext4 is suppose to fix the whole slow time with fsck I believe. 

Yes, fsck performance is indeed improved over ext3. 


-- 
Jarod Wilson 
[hidden email] 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss