IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New EXT3
I love XFS for speed, but I lost a LOT on a recent crash of XFS. After doing multiple passes with the tools (not fsck, forget), it claimed all OK, but then got worse.

I don't mind losing data on faulty hardware. I do mind when the diagnotics tools lie to me.

The only time you see the difference between XFS and EXT3 is during high-speed database or very large file grind thru, which should not be an issue for a development workstation.
New Does this still hold?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=211152|#211152]. Personally I would trust [link|http://linux.sys-con.com/read/44101.htm?CFID=195979&CFTOKEN=E07683A6-6BAC-E3AD-2DFFECF3D1755B8A|JFS] more than I'd trust EXT3, but that's just a gut feeling.

Luck with the choice.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Yes
Given the high performance requirement, on a super stable server, being served by a back end EMC, I'd use XFS.

But given a workstation with internal disks, and all the iffy environmental concerns, tied with a much higher level of pain associated with local data loss (as opposed to a well managed data center that someone else deals with), I would not use XFS locally.

So after that point, I'd go for best supported / simplest, ie: ext3, and eat a bit of performance in the process.
     Best filesystem for a development workstation? - (admin) - (6)
         the file system should be the one you are developing for. -NT - (boxley)
         Either. - (pwhysall) - (1)
             Does xfs journal data as well as metadata? -NT - (admin)
         EXT3 - (broomberg) - (2)
             Does this still hold? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 Yes - (broomberg)

ONE THE MACHINE!
39 ms