Request comparison of relative strenths of the various journaling file systems

[Collins Richey]

On 07 Apr 2003 08:26:03 -0400
Mel Roman <melroman at canada.com> wrote:

> 
> Thanks for your responses.  Here are some followup questions:
> 
> Collins Richey <erichey2 at attbi.com> writes:
> 
> > 1. Most people prefer XFS.  XFS has the one drawback that it is not
> > part of the 2.4.x kernel distribution; it will be packaged with the
> > kernal in 2.6.x.  This means you have to get the XFS patches, or
> > find a distro that has applied the patches.  The patches are not
> > available for pre-patch releases of the kernel.
> > 
> 
> Given this disadvatage, why do a lot of people on this list prefer
> XFS?  
> 

Check the archives for a complete discussion.  Many people prefer XFS
because it is longer in the tooth than the two upstarts, reiserfs and
EXT3.  XFS was developed by/on SGI(?) platforms and has had a lengthy
history of reliable performance before being offered as free software.

That being said, over the past couple of years, I've read about equal
numbers of "fill-in-the-blank ate my file system; I'm hosed"
reports for these three candidates.  As a desktop user, you can't go
far wrong with any of the three.  If you don't mind waiting for stable
kernel releases and waiting for new patches to appear, XFS is fine. 
With any of the three, you can use the Knoppix CD to recover when things
go bang.

If, however, you are wanting to build a server, you don't care much
about keeping up with the latest in kernels, so XFS would be a fine
choice, and most of the professionals on the list who bet their
reputations on their servers seem to opt for that approach.

-- 
Collins - Slack 9.0 EXT3