| 1 |
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 19:57:19 Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 2 |
> I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will |
| 3 |
> never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file |
| 4 |
> server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over |
| 5 |
> and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, |
| 6 |
> I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sounds like you used JFS in a case it was not designed for. XFS for instance |
| 9 |
can be best described as "a filesystem that does aggressive caching, so if |
| 10 |
you install it you need to guarantee that it will never lose power, i.e. use |
| 11 |
a UPS". It's OK for SGI to have done this, considering the kind of rendering |
| 12 |
clusters they were running it on. Use it outside that viewpoint and hey, |
| 13 |
JMMV. JFS will have it's own specific "best use" scenario |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The reiser stories are just that, horror stories from years ago. Then it was |
| 16 |
beta software, it is not beta any more. I've used it for over 4 years now on |
| 17 |
every machine I have and suffered no data loss that was not directly because |
| 18 |
of me being stupid. I don't think I can blame Hans if I run fsck with the |
| 19 |
wrong options at the wrong time :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about |
| 22 |
> every filesystem. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
yes, very much so. Much more so than for any other kind of driver by my |
| 25 |
experience. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives