Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Mar 2008 17:27 UTC, submitted by Rodrigo Menezes
Thread beginning with comment 304236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-08
Many people disagree and seem to have had problems with XFS according to comments online. (I can't find and remember the exact web links just now but a search for "problems with XFS" brings lots of results in Google. Of course, the same probably with other file systems too, however...:P)
New journaling versions of the ext file systems (3 & 4) are meant to be reliable. And rock solid reliability is by far the most important feature a file system can have IMHO.
I don't know what exactly would be the major benefits of xfs over ext3 or ext4? As far as I can remember to have read XFS failure handling could be improved, the file system cannot be shrunk, some operations can be slow etc.
I've seen many people hype the supposedly much better performance of XFS (or ReiserFS, Reiser4 and other file systems) compared to old ext-based file systems. But according to real tests there seems not to be huge performance differences between the journaling file systems in Linux (ext, reiserfs, xfs jfs). In some tests some file system may be slightly faster and in other tests the others may have a small benefit.
Personally I would trade a debatable tiny amount of extra file system speed for greater reliability anytime. Anyway, a lot of the talk concerning file systems seems to be based on subjective feelings mostly.