Re: [MLUG] Reasonable hard disk throughput numbers?

[Phillip Kelchen <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 10:12, Dave Lloyd wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Phillip Kelchen wrote:
> > Also, XFS is supposed to be the best "big file throughput" file system.
> > Its only downside is that it needs to be cleanly umounted or it will
> > become corrupted. So you would need a UPS or something to ensure that you
> > can cleanly umount the disk if the power goes off.
>
> XFS is a journaled filesystem so it doesn't need to be cleanly
> unmounted.  It *may* become corrupt if you keep umounting uncleanly, but
> it's far more robust than the above paragraph seems to state.
>
> ex-SGI employee,
>
> --dlloyd

Great. I was reading an article comparing Linux filesystems 
(http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz scroll down to about 2/5 of the 
way down the very long page) and there was commentary on another page about 
the XFS being corruptible if not cleanly umounted (and a big thing in favor 
of ReiserFS.) Overall, its performance is very good, actually- all of the 
filesystems were good except Reiser4. 

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members