| |||||||||||||
Shared painShared painPosted Feb 9, 2012 17:25 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Shared pain by dlang Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?
What you seem to be saying is that these classes of programs should be forced to use filesystems that give them huge performance penalties to accommodate other programs that are more careless, so that those careless programs loose less data In a word: yes. not no data loss, just less Always and forever. No matter what filesystem you are using you data is toast in a case of RAID failure or lightning strike. This means that we always talk about probabilities. This leads us to detailed explanation of the aforementioned phenomenon: in most cases you can not afford dedicated partitions for your database or mailserver and is this world filesystem without suitable reliability guarantees (like atomic rename in a crash case without fsync) is pointless. When your system grows it becomes good idea to dedicate server just to be a mailserver or just to be a database server. But the window of opportunity is quite small because when you go beyond handful of servers you need to develop plans which will keep your business alive in a face of hard crash (HDD failure, etc). And if you've designed your system for such a case then all these journalling efforts in a filesystem are just a useless overhead (see Google which switched from ext2 to ext4 without journal). I'm not saying XFS is always useles. No, there are exist cases where you can use it effectively. But these are rare cases thus XFS will always be undertested. And this, in turn, usually means you should stick with extX/btrfs.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||