| 1 |
Am 06.09.2011 19:52, schrieb Pandu Poluan: |
| 2 |
> On 2011-09-07, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So, can anyone recommend me a filesystem that fulfills my following needs: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Scenario: vFirewall (virtual Firewall) that is going to be deployed at |
| 6 |
>> my IaaS Cloud Provider. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Disk I/O Characteristic: Occasional writes during 'normal' usage, |
| 9 |
>> once-a-week eix-sync + emerge -avuD |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Priority: Stable (i.e., less chance of corruption), least CPU usage. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> My Google-Fu seems to indicate either XFS or JFS; what do you think? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Rgds, |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> Sorry, forgot one thing: For the time being, I'm sticking with |
| 18 |
> 2.6.39-hardened. Saw too many incompatibility bug with 3.0 (due to |
| 19 |
> packages hard-wired to expect the kernel version to begin with "2.6"). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Rgds, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
JFS is a pretty good and care-free choice for this. Low resource usage. |
| 26 |
Good performance, especially with large files. Although I must admit, I |
| 27 |
wouldn't use it anymore since Ext4 is usually good enough for just about |
| 28 |
every use-case and tested by more people in new kernel versions |
| 29 |
(therefore presumably more stable). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives