Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 11:13, Olaf Frączyk wrote:
> > > Recoverability matters to me. The driver could be 10 megabyte and
> > > *I* would not care. XFS seems to stand no matter how rudely the OS
> > > is knocked down.

> > But XFS easily breaks down due to media defects. Once ago I used XFS,
> > but I lost all data on one of my volumes due to a bad block on my hard
> > disk. XFS was unable to recover from the error, and the XFS recovery
> > tools were unable to deal with the error.

> You lost all data? Or you just had to restore them from backup? If you
> didn't have a backup it is your fault not XFS one :)

Well, it was a testing machine with no important data, so I could just
afford to lose everything, as it was the case.

> But even if you had no backup, why didn't you move your data (using dd
> or something else) to another (without defects) drive, and run recovery
> on new drive?

I tried, but it proved more difficult than expected, since the computer
was a laptop and I couldn't move the HDD to another computer. Using the
distro rescue CD was useless as it's kernel didn't have XFS support. All
in all, XFS recovery was a nightmare compared to ext3 recovery, for
example.