| |||||||||||||
Why EXT4?Why EXT4?Posted Mar 17, 2009 20:47 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048)In reply to: Why EXT4? by sbergman27 Parent article: Better than POSIX?
I'm not aware of any major distro defaulting to XFS there are a great many people using it (it has been the most reasonable choice for production filesystems >2TB as ext3 can't grow that big) and the major distros all offer XFS as install option today.
I don't disagree with the position that the end result is a "linux (distribution) problem" to the end user. But the problem is not the filesystem or the kernel. The problem is the dependence on zillions of tiny dot files (or a registry, *cough*, gconf) which absolutely can't be corrupt. Even if EXT4 provides the EXT3 behaviour there will always be opportunities for these files to become corrupted (software/hardware failure, cosmic ray, etc) and that the failure frequently results in an inability to even login is simply unacceptable. Quite arguably the file system which demonstrates its corner case behaviour more frequently is preferable since it means that developers will be more aware and more likely to address these situations.
(Log in to post comments)
Why EXT4? Posted Mar 17, 2009 22:27 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
Well, eventually Linus is going to speak up on this topic. So I think I'll just wait for him to say what he thinks about reliability regressions, made in the name of performance optimizations, in what is supposed to be Linux's next standard filesystem. I predict that it won't be pretty.
Why EXT4? Posted Mar 18, 2009 19:58 UTC (Wed) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
ext3 filesystem size limit is 8TB (I just built one this week, in fact), derived from 2**31 4K blocks. The 2TB limit is the old style DOS partition table limit, derived from 2**32 512 byte sectors. Ext4 has an exabyte filesystem size limit, and GPT partitioning (or LVM/RAID with multiple DOS partitions) gets around 2TB limit. Just FYI.
|
|||||||||||||