SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2014

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:45:03 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
On 07/28/2014 06:37 AM, Brent L. Bates wrote:
>       At my previous job, I used the XFS file system almost
> exclusively.  I only used ext[2-3], if I had no other choice and I
> usually worked to get them changed to XFS, if at all possible.  I
> started using XFS when it first came out for SGI's, probably 20 years
> ago..  I also used xfsdump/xfsrestore to tape.  When we switched to
> LINUX, I also used XFS there as well.  XFS and it's utilities are
> VASTLY superior to ext[2-4] and dump/restore.  XFS is better, faster,
> HUGELY more reliable, and far more robust tha ext[2-4].  I've seen XFS
> survive repeated system crashes and hardware failures and still be
> able to get my data off of it.
>
>       restore doesn't care what file system you restore to.  All it
> cares about is the source.  You should be able to take your old dumps
> and restore them to XFS file systems.  Once on your new XFS file
> systems, use xfsdump/xfsrestore to create new backups.
>

Hi Brent,

     Awesome!  Thank you!

     So if I was happy with ext4, I should be delirious
with XFS.

-T

ATOM RSS1 RSS2