| 1 |
On Mon 13 Aug 2012 08:28:15 PM IST, Michael Hampicke wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I guess traversing through directories may be faster with XFS, |
| 3 |
>> but in my experience ext4 perfoms better than XFS in regard to |
| 4 |
>> operations (cp, rm) on small files. |
| 5 |
>> I read that there are some tuning options for XFS and small |
| 6 |
>> files, but never tried it. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> But if somone seconds XFS I will try it too. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's been a while since I messed with this but isn't XFS the one |
| 11 |
> that hates power failures and such? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Dale |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> :-) :-) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> -- |
| 18 |
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Well, it's the delayed allocation of XFS (which prevents |
| 21 |
> fragmentation) that does not like sudden power losses :) But ext4 has |
| 22 |
> that too, you can disable it though - that should be true for XFS too. |
| 23 |
> But the power situation in the datacenter has never been a problem so |
| 24 |
> far, and even if the cache partition get's screwed, we can always |
| 25 |
> rebuild it. Takes a few hours, but it would not be the end of the world :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, XFS hates power failures. I got a giant UPS for my home desktop to |
| 28 |
use XFS because of it's excellent performance ;-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Nilesh Govindrajan |
| 32 |
http://nileshgr.com |
Archives