Linux filesystems was [Re: Debian cd supporting ext4.]
in [Debian]
|
From: Kelly Clowers on 27 Jul 2010 09:10 On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:51, Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com> wrote: > > Debian will _always_ default to an EXT* filesystem--until the end of time. Nope, btrfs will replace ext3/4 as default soon enough. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTi=HGrOM682LBGMYPx44uqJ2Dg25jWXzhiVVAMZr(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Aniruddha on 27 Jul 2010 10:50 On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(a)ttmail.com> wrote: > > You are missing a very important point: Durability to power failures. > (Excuse me, but a majority of GNU/Linux users are not switched to a UPS > or something.) And that's where XFS totally fails[1][2]. > Ext3 has the same problems when not properly configured: Ext3 does not do checksumming when writing to the journal. If barrier=1 is not enabled as a mount option (in /etc/fstab), and if the hardware is doing out-of-order write caching, one runs the risk of severe filesystem corruption during a crash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#No_checksumming_in_journal For the record I use ext3, I remember XFS as not being reliable enough (with power failures etc).
From: Aniruddha on 27 Jul 2010 13:10 On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com>wrote: > Volkan YAZICI put forth on 7/27/2010 8:22 AM: > > > You are missing a very important point: Durability to power failures. > > (Excuse me, but a majority of GNU/Linux users are not switched to a UPS > > or something.) And that's where XFS totally fails[1][2]. > > > [1] > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Debian/2008-11/msg00097.html > > .... > a fantastic piece of FOSS into which many top-of-their-game > kernel engineers have put tens of thousands of man hours, striving to make > it > the best it can be--and are wildly succeeding. > > That's was very informative, thanks. You got me curious and I will test XFS on my home system. To be honest I am still little wary of using XFS in a production environment. For years now I have heard stories of power failures with catastrophic results when using XFS. Anyone who using XFS in a mission critical production environment? Anyone has experience with that?
From: Stan Hoeppner on 27 Jul 2010 13:30 Aniruddha put forth on 7/27/2010 9:43 AM: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(a)ttmail.com> wrote: > >> >> You are missing a very important point: Durability to power failures. >> (Excuse me, but a majority of GNU/Linux users are not switched to a UPS >> or something.) And that's where XFS totally fails[1][2]. >> > > Ext3 has the same problems when not properly configured: > > Ext3 does not do checksumming when writing to the journal. If barrier=1 is > not enabled as a mount option (in /etc/fstab), and if the hardware is doing > out-of-order write caching, one runs the risk of severe filesystem > corruption during a crash. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#No_checksumming_in_journal > > For the record I use ext3, I remember XFS as not being reliable enough > (with power failures etc). This isn't a filesystem problem, or a kernel problem, or any other technical problem. This is a user problem. You will _never_ get computing technology the fully does what you _think_ it should upon loss of power. Period. XFS will prevent filesystem corruption (lookup the definition) but it will not prevent data loss. These are two completely different things. _No_ filesystem will fully prevent data loss when power is lost, but most will prevent filesystem corruption. Again, these are two different things. If you want maximum performance, you have to enable drive caches. Doing so causes more data loss when the power goes, and again, it's not the fault of the filesystem. If you want maximum protection against data loss, you have to disable drive caches, reduce the size of the in memory journal log buffer, etc, etc. Doing all of these things will absolutely murder your FS performance. This is a balancing act folks. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd also like to add that anyone smart enough to be on this list is smart enough to know you should have a UPS, regardless of what filesystem you use. If you're not you shouldn't be here. If you disagree on the technical merits (not cost), you're uneducated and/or stubborn. If you disagree on a cost basis, your data isn't valuable, period. A decent low end UPS for a desktop system that will get you through all brown outs and far enough through a storm outage (15-30 minutes) to do a proper shutdown costs about $50 USD. That's less than a carton of cigarettes in New York City, less than 3 regular price large pizzas at Dominos, and $25 less than a tank of gas for a full size pickup, which would last most people one week of commute. The cost of one tank of gas for 3-5 years of power protection before needing a battery replacement. I guess I should evangelize UPS as much as XFS given the benefits. Except XFS is free. ;) -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4C4F17DB.7010101(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Paul Cartwright on 27 Jul 2010 13:50
On Tue July 27 2010, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > I'd also like to add that anyone smart enough to be on this list is smart > enough to know you should have a UPS, regardless of what filesystem you > use. If you're not you shouldn't be here. If you disagree on the technical > merits (not cost), you're uneducated and/or stubborn. If you disagree on a > cost basis, your data isn't valuable, period. A decent low end UPS for a > desktop system that will get you through all brown outs and far enough > through a storm outage (15-30 minutes) to do a proper shutdown costs about > $50 USD. That's less than a carton of cigarettes in New York City, less > than 3 regular price large pizzas at Dominos, and $25 less than a tank of > gas for a full size pickup, which would last most people one week of > commute. The cost of one tank of gas for 3-5 years of power protection > before needing a battery replacement. this is something that I preach to EVERYONE who has a computer. Some people don't understand that I leave my computer plugged in & running 24/7. they give me a deer-in-the-headlights look when I tell them I don't turn my computer off. But I live in Georgia, home of MASSIVE thunderstorms. I also live at the end of a street with 110 foot tall oak & pine trees along side the road, and right next to our electric poles. In 5 years we have had 3 trees drop on wires & cause loss of power, and I've had up to 20+ entries in the apcupsd.log file in ONE day, from thunder boomers. I have THREE UPSes in my house, not just my PC, but ALL electronic equipment, TV, stero AND Dish satellite receiver. I would NEVER plug anything electronic in, in MY house WITHOUT an UPS. > > I guess I should evangelize UPS as much as XFS given the benefits. Except > XFS is free. ;) UPSes are really cheap and EXCELLENT insurance for not only your hardware, but your DATA. I won't even mention a company, and I DON'T work for them! -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 Registered Ubuntu User #12459 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201007271342.01889.debian(a)pcartwright.com |