Re: [tlug] Linux Filesystems Comparison Article

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 17:32 +0900, Patrick Niessen wrote:
> On 4/28/06, Edward Middleton <edward@example.com> wrote:
> 
> > >>
> > > To be honest I am not sure why they made this recommendation.  From my
> > > experience of hosting 15 Users Data with Samba on XFS I never had a
> > > problem with such data loss.
> >
> > How often do you cut the power to this server while it is in the middle
> > of writing lots of data to disk.
> >
> 
> I am sure everyone can agree its NOT good to cut power from a system
> that performs a lot of writing to disk.  We use UPS but - ahem -
> sometimes a powerswitch in the rack got mistakenly pressed...  So far
> the server always survived.

I ran a desktop machine, without a UPS, in a house with bad wiring which
caused the breaker to blow every other day.  While clearly not an
optimum setup, I would imagine most people don't use a UPS on there home
machines.  I found there was significantly more data loss when using
XFS, then with reiserfs or ext3.  I still use XFS because of the various
features you have mentioned as well as its ability to be extended while
mounted, but I can understand why a document giving general advice would
suggest you use a UPS.

Edward