Re: [tlug] Linux Filesystems Comparison Article

[Shawn <javajunkie@example.com>]

> The article concludes that XFS is the most appropriate all-round file
> system.  I tend to agree, and have been using it on our server's file
> system for 5 years.
 
I'm not so knowledgeable so please keep that in mind.

In thinking about a file system for a personal workstation...

I read the article and discussion and noticed:

<Posted by Anonymous (82.69.xx.xx) on Sat 22 Apr 2006 at 13:57>

'ext3' additionally can make an attempt at recovering the contents of
files too, if ordered or data journaling is enabled. 

However the proper way to ensure data (as opposed to metadata)
recoverability is to ensure the application handles that, using atomic
data transactions, because that's the only way, and even if 'ext3' often
succeeds blindly, that is not the right way. 

Large scale filesystems like JFS and XFS, designed for mission critical
applications, don't do any attempt at data recovery,

</Posted by Anonymous (82.69.xx.xx) on Sat 22 Apr 2006 at 13:57>

Then read:

I read http://www.gentoo.org/doc/ja/handbook/handbook-hppa.xml?part=1&chap=4#doc_chap4

<from gentoo.org>

We only recommend using this filesystem [XFS] on Linux systems with ...
an uninterruptible power supply. Because XFS aggressively caches in-
transit data in RAM, improperly designed programs (those that don't take
proper precautions when writing files to disk and there are quite a few
of them) can lose a good deal of data if the system goes down
unexpectedly. 

</from gentoo.org>

realistically though, I don't wonder if the seeming performance
advantages outweigh the minimal risk of data loss I'd face.  It's not
like it's truly critical stuff that may be lost anyway.  Hmmm...

Shawn