BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Linux file systems
- Subject: [Discuss] Linux file systems
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:53:47 -0400
- In-reply-to: <53336520.2050503@gmail.com>
- References: <1395861029.5444.YahooMailNeo@web122205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4cfb4df8a2b02b85964f545dad3a924c.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com> <53334506.2020506@gmail.com> <53336520.2050503@gmail.com>
Richard Pieri wrote: > ...ext4...is...a poor choice. ext4 is unstable, it's buggy... I'm not saying you're wrong, as I haven't investigated the matter myself. I've certainly heard of Ext4 having bugs. But is this still current information? In tech we have a tendency to get turned off to technologies easily. Particularly ones that we rely on for important things, like data storage. (How often have we heard someone say they'll never use vendor X's hard drive again, after having just experienced a drive failure?) Are the sentiments towards Ext4 inertia from growing pains it had in its early years, or are they an accurate reflection of where the code stands today? If there are still lingering problems, can anyone cite references? Are they well documented, confirmed, and understood flaws? Are they problems likely to be seen in the real world? (I ran across a report of an Ext4 bug recently, but it was only triggered under highly improbable circumstances.) Or is it an aggregation of anecdotal reports saying the file system is unreliable? Are there fundamental architectural problems with Ext4? If the file system is so problematic, what's your theory as to why many distributions have chosen to stick with it? What reasons did RedHat cite for favoring XFS over Ext4? > It's that ext4 was end of life the moment Theodore Ts'o checked in the code... What does that mean? Theodore Ts'o abandoned it? Or it was so far behind the state-of-the-art represented by other current file systems that it had no hope of catching up? If the latter, that sounds subjective. Linux supports a lot of file systems that all have various trade-offs. What makes sense on an embedded device, a NAS, or a general purpose desktop will all be different. Eventually we may come to use something like ZFS as a general purpose file system on a desktop, but today that would be looked at as overkill. > ...the recovery tools (fsck, etc) are lacking... In what way? > ...it has no backup tools... Not everyone agrees that it is necessary to have a filesystem-specific backup tool. > ...it's impossible to back out once an extent is used... Why is that significant? Does it lead to greater fragmentation? Wasted space? -Tom -- Tom Metro The Perl Shop, Newton, MA, USA "Predictable On-demand Perl Consulting." http://www.theperlshop.com/
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Linux file systems
- From: blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey (blu))
- [Discuss] Linux file systems
- References:
- [Discuss] Reading Linux book
- From: aldo_albanese at yahoo.com (aldo albanese)
- [Discuss] Reading Linux book
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] Linux file systems
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] Linux file systems
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Reading Linux book
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] What to do with Grampa's old TiVo box?
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Linux file systems
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Linux file systems
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Linux file systems
- Index(es):