Re: [tlug] xfs, jfs, reiser

[Bruno Raoult <br@example.com>]

I have comparable recovery time with reiserfs (from 1 to 4 seconds). But 
I must
admin that I have got 1 or 2 time strange behavior.

For instance, one day, after a crash, a file in my .mozilla was not 
consistent: trying
to access it caused the reading program to be "killed", such as:
    % cat thefile
    killed.
    %

I *never* had this kind of problem with ext2 (or ufs on Solaris). 
Sometimes I lost
data, but after a fsck the file system was always consistent.

Bruno.

Jonathan Byrne wrote:

>The big three alternative journaling file systems (alternative to ext3,
>and ignoring the fact that they actually appeared in the wild
>before ext3 did).
>
>Our topic for the day here on File System Coffe Talk is, "Which
>one do you favor, and why?" 
>
>"Why" should not be "I've been using it for a while and it hasn't caused
>me to lose my family/house/job, it hasn't burned my house, stolen my
>car, drank my liquor from my old fruit jar, or stepped on my blue suede
>shoes, my dog hasn't run away because of it, and my truck still starts"
>but rather, a statement of what's better technically better about it.  
>
>In other words, the bar for "What's good about it" is higher than not
>having lost any data from using it.  I can say that about ext2.  I
>can even say that about FAT. 
>
>Someone (sorry, forget who) recently mentioned that they get journal
>recovery times of about 1 second on XFS.  Are Reiser and JFS comparable?
>Which one would you run on your workstation? A server? Why?
>
>I'm getting a bit verklempt.  Discuss among yourselves :-)
>
>
>  
>