On 5/16/06, Ken Schneider
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 06:29 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Anders,
On Monday 15 May 2006 23:33, Anders Norrbring wrote:
...
Greg, What are your NSHO ( ;-) ) about JFS? I'm also looking at implementing a high performing FS on a client machine that shovels loads of files, both small and big, and I do *NOT* want XFS on that machine. Personally I prefer XFS myself, but then I do have redundancy all the way on my systems...
Why *DON'T* you want XFS on that machine?
Perhaps they had a problem a couple of years ago. Once bitten, twice shy. I have been xfs for a few years both on a desktop and a laptop and have -not- had any problems.
Ken, I'm curious, do you use X? I've personally don't keep home on XFS, but I've read numerous times about some of the config files being zero'd out upon unexpected shutdowns. Apparently it was very obvious to the users and they had to reset up their X (or KDE/Gnome/etc.) config. I really don't remember the details, but it certainly scared me away from using XFS for routine use. Also, the response from the XFS team on the mailing list was aways, we've done what we can to shorten the window, but by design XFS does not journal data, just meta-data. Therefore with an unexpected shutdown we can't always trust the data of certain open files and for those files we reset the content to nulls. Seriously it was a big and common complaint on the XFS mailing list for years. I personally have not been paying attention to XFS in the 2.6 kernel. I'm waiting for XFS/LVM snapshots to work more reliably before I consider upgrading any of my fileservers. FYI: I actually have upgraded a test fileserver and I get LVM snapshot failures simi-routinely on that server. In fact I had one over the weekend. That is one of things I want to test out 10.1 on to see if the snapshots are working better yet or not. Greg -- Greg Freemyer The Norcross Group Forensics for the 21st Century