If ext3 is anywhere near as reliable as ext3, then ext4's big advantage
over xfs is much lower risk of losing your entire filesystem when
something goes wrong.
Posted Jan 23, 2009 3:54 UTC (Fri) by clump (subscriber, #27801)
[Link]
I believe you're referring to mounting ordered mode by default. It's the main reason I use EXT3 nearly everywhere. EXT4 has it, and it's the default just like EXT3.
Found this nugget and others in 2.6.28's "ext4.txt" documentation.
Nope - there are other problems with xfs
Posted Jan 23, 2009 10:03 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Actually it all is related to any stress-conditions. Fill the XFS
partition with bittorrent-downloaded files (no pre-allocate!) and the only
way to save this partition is to backup everything and restore from backup.
Yes, it's nasty thing to do with the FS (bittorrent with pre-allocate more-
or-less equals to creation of files from pieces in random order and if you
fill the FS to 100% there are no way to radically optimize layout - because
all files must be sparse or else they'll not fit), but I still
expect that any sane filesystem will be slow after that, not
dead. XFS failed this test consistently for a few years in row and
eventually I've just stopped caring and stopped using it...
ext4 over xfs
Posted Jan 23, 2009 13:45 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
[Link]
Well, I was specifically thinking of the other side, how badly xfs has
screwed up filesystems of mine in the past. And I started out as a fan of
xfs, having used it on SGIs. But between losing an entire filesystem on
an external drive, and getting strings of zero-bytes strewn without
warning throughout files on another filesystem, I'm done with xfs.
(BTW, I meant "if *ext4* is anywhere near as reliable as ext3" in my
original comment.)