Subject: Re: LFS (was Thank you NetBSD)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/25/2005 09:28:38
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> If one is forced to run Linux :-( which FS is the least likely
>> to lose data, and how much worse is it than NetBSD's FFS?
> I've know people who have had systems with ext2 and ext3 crash, and
> large amounts of data. I had a Slackware 10 system here for awhile,
> and used
> reiserfs, which seemed fairly fast, but I never had a crash. I would
> bet JFS
> and XFS are good based on my experience with AIX and IRIX.
I'd pick jfs too - also based on AIX experience :)
My site is hosted on a Motorola PowerStack II running AIX 4.3.2 for
ages, had several power outages - never lost a single byte of data and
it was always back online less than a minute after power was back.
ReiserFS has a reputation for trouble, but that's more or less SuSE's
fault and it may have changed. I can't really comment on XFS, I know it
from IRIX on an Indigo2 but I didn't play with it long enough to form a
reasonable opinion. It never made trouble, but that's what I'd expect
from any filesystem.
If you want I can post bonnie++ results for a bunch of roughly
comparable machines ( S900 with 300MHz G3 under NetBSD, PowerStack II
with 300MHz 604e / AIX, Sun Ultra 10 with 333MHs UltraSPARC II / NetBSD
... ) but they'd hardly be fair - different disks, different SCSI
hardware and so on. FFS has an edge when creating/deleting files,
thanks to softdeps, other tests show a slight edge for jfs. The AIX box
also manages higher throughput but it has Wide-SCSI while the S900 has
only narrow, the Sun has UW SCSI but slower disks so it's slowest. Both
the AIX box and the S900 have Seagate Barracuda SCA drives, raw speed
is sort of comparable but the AIX box has a nearly full 50GB drive, the
S900 a half-empty 9GB so the results wouldn't be really comparable
JFS on AIX seems to have slightly more overhead than FFS on NetBSD,
this may be related to the Logical Volume Manage. In everyday work
there's hardly a noticeable difference, NetBSD seems a tad more
responsive under high IO load though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----