Prev: Disk performance problem
Next: Mac classic theme for gnome...
From: FP on 12 Apr 2010 09:13
On 10/04/2010 00:04, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Johnny B Good may or may not have written...

....

>>I created a 1.79 TB Ext2 FS on the partition spaces thus created on the two
>>new disks and was able to copy the 900 odd GB's worth of data each of the
>>old drives contained without incident.
>
>
> With that sort of size, I'd definitely be looking towards ext4 (given a
> new-enough kernel). There are some definite speed improvements there...
>
> [snip]

Is it safe yet? I saw this recently:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzk0OA

and chose ext3 when I installed Mandriva after that :)

FP
From: Darren Salt on 12 Apr 2010 10:33
I demand that FP may or may not have written...

> On 10/04/2010 00:04, Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Johnny B Good may or may not have written...
> ...
>>> I created a 1.79 TB Ext2 FS on the partition spaces thus created on the
>>> two new disks and was able to copy the 900 odd GB's worth of data each
>>> of the old drives contained without incident.
>> With that sort of size, I'd definitely be looking towards ext4 (given a
>> new-enough kernel). There are some definite speed improvements there...
>> [snip]

> Is it safe yet? I saw this recently:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzk0OA
> and chose ext3 when I installed Mandriva after that :)

Your choice. I've not seen any problems (yet); and yes, I'm using both ext3
and ext4.

--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + It's 1984.

You are unscrupulously dishonest, false, and deceitful.
From: Mike Civil on 14 Apr 2010 08:16
In article <slrnhsbag0.9u2.pm(a)nowster.eternal-september.org>,
Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote:
>I think XFS is a wee bit better in that regard in the most recent
>kernels.

Hopefully so - I suffered quite a bit of data corruption, some of
which wasn't immediately evident. Just over a year ago when xfs_repair
completely trashed a partition I switched to ext4 and I've not had a
single problem since. Maybe I was just unlucky, or XFS triggered some
borderline software/hardware problem.

>Of course I keep backups. Why do you ask? :-)

:))
From: Tony Houghton on 15 Apr 2010 09:40
In <slrnhsdlv1.bk7.itsbruce(a)store.bruce>,
Bruce Richardson <itsbruce(a)uklinux.net> wrote:

> Mike Civil <mike(a)duncodin.org> wrote:
>> Hopefully so - I suffered quite a bit of data corruption, some of
>> which wasn't immediately evident. Just over a year ago when xfs_repair
>> completely trashed a partition I switched to ext4 and I've not had a
>> single problem since. Maybe I was just unlucky, or XFS triggered some
>> borderline software/hardware problem.
>
> The Linux xfs kernel module had, until recently, some issues with write
> barriers which could cause corruption after unclean shutdowns/unmounts
> on some hardware configurations. Had a couple of incidents with it
> myself, but I chose to use defensive configurations and keep using XFS
> where I needed it. Those problems have now been fixed.

I lost some data to XFS once. What was more important for me was that I
couldn't recover the partition. No doubt I could have done if I'd put in
some real effort, but the data on it (VDR recordings) wasn't that
important to me compared to being able to get the drive usable again
quickly. Although I've had corruption of ext partitions on a number of
occasions, it's never been something that fsck couldn't handle and
recover the vast majority of the data and directory structure.

Also, when I used XFS in the past I was struck by how it could delete
those 2GB VDR recording files almost instantaneously compared to a
couple of seconds or so for ext2/3. But when I tried it again on a new
HD I found it just as slow as ext3. Maybe it's unable to apply certain
optimisations on partitions above a certain size?

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: alexd on 15 Apr 2010 14:17
On 15/04/10 14:40, Tony Houghton wrote:

> Also, when I used XFS in the past I was struck by how it could delete
> those 2GB VDR recording files almost instantaneously compared to a
> couple of seconds or so for ext2/3. But when I tried it again on a new
> HD I found it just as slow as ext3. Maybe it's unable to apply certain
> optimisations on partitions above a certain size?

Maybe you had it mounted with different options? [eg sync]

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx)
19:15:16 up 6 days, 8:27, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.10, 0.14
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Disk performance problem
Next: Mac classic theme for gnome...