[plug] Journalling FS Benchmarks

[Sawan Vithlani]

Damn man....its phrases like "touch wood" which scares me away from trying 
Reiser. Maybe should try it in one of my spare partitions.



On Thursday 13 May 2004 22:16, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> Bernard Blackham wrote:
> | > It seems JFS, XFS, & Reiser are all fairly similar, and better than
> | > Ext3. Anyone have any personal recommendations? What about other
> | > features, like stability, recoverability, undeleting deleted files,
> | > etc?
>
> Re. undeleting files:  I don't think that any fs supported by Linux
> (other than FAT or ext2) has an 'undelete' mechanism.
>
> | In my experience, ext2/3 still seem to be rock solid in terms of
> | stability, resiliance, and ability to recover from corruption.
>
> ext3 makes stronger guarantees about the consistency of data written
> to disc than the other journaling FSes - not only does it ensure that
> file metadata is correct, but also ensures that in the event of a
> crash, a partially-written file will never data that actually belongs
> to some other file.  (And it does this without replacing the whole
> bleeding file with 0's when remounting, like XFS does.)
>
> http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html
>
> | I've heard many horror stories of Reiser filesystems vanishing,
>
> Likewise, though I've been brave enough to use reiserfs on a few
> machines and *touch wood* nothing bad has happened yet.
>
> | and seen XFS filesystems zero out files.
>
> Hey, that's my line ;-)
>
> | The XFS kernel code I've also seen panic machines (I don't believe a
> | corrupt filesystem should panic a machine).
>
> One failure mode of XFS also involves making an file system
> unmountable after a crash or power failure, which shouldn't
> happen with a journaling FS.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cameron.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au