| 1 |
On 24/04/13 06:34, Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'll add my anecdotes :) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> In over 10 years, I have never had a file system failure with any of |
| 6 |
>> these (all used a lot): |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> ext2 |
| 9 |
>> ext3 |
| 10 |
>> ext4 |
| 11 |
>> zfs |
| 12 |
>> reiser3 |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> ext2, ext3, ext4, btrfs here. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> ext4 for years (ever since it lost the dev suffix in the kernel) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I find filesystems are very much a case of YMMV :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I will NOT use an ext fs again willingly - lost too many whole systems, |
| 21 |
corruption - Ive had less problems with DOS! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Reiserfs, has had its "moments" but is by far the most stable system, |
| 24 |
though NTFS isnt bad these days either. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
btrfs - I am using this for backups systems and under a cephfs rbd store |
| 27 |
for VM's. Not bad ... but definitely not stable though its months since |
| 28 |
I have lost a whole system ... I am also using it as the primary file |
| 29 |
system on an apple macbook air (ssd) and for the OS on an ssd for a vm |
| 30 |
server host and its been problem free on both. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
BillK |
Archives