Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Oleg Verych <> | | Subject | Re: New filesystem for Linux | | Date | Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:00:57 +0000 (UTC) |
On 2006-11-03, Mikulas Patocka wrote: [] >> Well, at least for XFS everybody tell that it should be used with UPS only if >> you really care about your data. I think it has something to do with heavy >> in-RAM caching this filesystem does. > > System is allowed to cache anything unless sync/fsync is called. Someone > told that XFS has some bugs that if crashed incorrectly, it can lose > already synced data ... don't know. Plus it has that infamous feature (not > a bug) that it commits size-increase but not data and you see zero-filed > files.
AFAIK, XFS by design must provide _file system_ consistency, not data.
[] >> PS. Do you have any benchmarks of your filesystem? Did you do any longer >> automated tests to prove it is not going to loose data to easily? > > I have, I may find them and post them. (but the university wants me to > post them to some conference, so I should keep them secret :-/)
Interesting to know, how "another one" FS is quick and stable.
On my new hardware, with dual core CPU 3.4G, 1G of RAM, 1/2TB disk space (office pro, yes *office* (pro)), `dd' can suck 50M/s, (running and) extracting 2.6.19-rc2 on fresh 20Gb partition (xfs,jfs) yields nearly 4M/s.
As for ordinary user it seems very slowly.
Ext2 (not ext3) is as fast as shmfs, until RAM will be full. And after 13 cycles XFS has 11-12 directories with good linux source, ext2 6-7 (IIRC). On start of 14th cycle i pushed reset button, btw.
Mounting & repairing XFS took less than minute; e2fsck spent more time on printing, rather than reparing, i think (:.
Want to create another one? OK, but why not to improve existing? >/dev/null ____ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |