[linux-lvm] LVM onFly features
Marc-Jano Knopp
pub_ml_lvm at marc-jano.de
Sat Dec 10 22:31:40 UTC 2005
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 at 15:10 (-0700), Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On December 10, 2005 9:22:32 PM +0100 Marc-Jano Knopp <pub_ml_lvm at marc-jano.de> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the detailled explanation!
>
> I try not to say something without actual experience and technical details
> to back it up. :)
If only everyone would do that ... (that said, I should better shut up
from now on :-}
> > So for now, I'll probably stay with ext3, with which I had
> > no problems so far.
[...]
> XFS has terrible unpredictable performance in production. Also it has very
> bad behavior when recovering from crashes, often times it's tools totally
> fail to clean the filesystem.
Okay, so I'm even more biased to using ext3. :-}
[...]
> I've had far better reliability and performance out of ReiserFS in
> production (late 2.4 series... 2.4.20+, currently 2.4.25, with some patches
> on most of our larger systems) than XFS.
Hmm ... i guess for 2.6.x, experiences can totally differ.
[...]
> XFS may be a proven filesystem, but it has not yet been proven in Linux'
> implementation. That said, all of the filesystems have their own quirks
> and shortcomings. We had a corruption problem with our CX200 that caused
> our ReiserFS to lose most of it's tails. Really it was the CX200 (EMC
> Clariion) fault, but it felt (And still does) at the time that ReiserFS
> could've or atleast should've been able to save more of the tail data that
> it lost. It didn't lose any files, just a the tails.
I thought the tails would be used to save the file blocks with less than
$BLOCKSIZE? So, if ReiserFS lost the tails, it would be a very lucky
coincidence, if none of the files were damaged. Or am I misguided again?
:-}
Best regards
Marc-Jano
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list