[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM onFly features



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 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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]