Hi Paul Robert Marino!

 On 2013.03.18 at 08:55:39 -0400, Paul Robert Marino wrote next:

> I've used XFS for over a decade now. Its the most reliable crash resistant
> filesystem I've ever used according to all my tests and experience. But I have

This might be true, but it's not the case for all. I've experienced very bad
corruptions on xfs myself, resulting in lots of non-accessible fake
files (random size, attributes etc) with random filenames including
non-printable characters - and there was no way to remove them, fsck
refused to fix them, too. Filesystem was in total mess and producing
various errors - it's fortunate that I was able to copy all real data
without corruption from it, though. Since then I try not to approach xfs
without serious reason.

I'd rather use JFS for huge filesystem which I've been using for many
years until ext4 appeared.. But for fs >16 Tb jfs is still best option,
I believe (far more stable in my experience compared to xfs, though
might be not as fast).

For several reasons most people don't consider JFS but I used it on tons
of servers for filesystems > 1 Tb (ext3 was a bad choice for huge
filesystems for various reasons) and never had a single issue with it.

At most, after multiple power failures during heavy write access I had
errors which remounted it into R/O mode and fsck always fixed it.

> By the way I know why the performance goes down on NFS4 its mostly due to the
> fact that it supports xattribs natively and ext3 does not unless you explicitly
> turn it on when you mount the file system.

I don't really understand your implication: xfs is slower *due* to xattr
support? So if I will mount ext4 with user_xattr option, NFS4 from it
will become slower? How come?


-- 

Vladimir