In the last exciting episode, andrew@libertyrms.info (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:15:09PM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
>> the merits of running PostgreSQL on EXT2, EXT3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, etc.?
>
> ext2 is really not crash-safe. I think I'd think twice.
>
> There have been some recent reports about corruption under reiserfs,
> but not much detail on it.
There were some releases that weren't terribly stable, though by the
same token, I was using it throughout that /entire/ period, without
encountering any of those vaguely-reported losses of data.
> The performance list recently had a discussion of performance and
> ext3.
>
> I'd be _real_ interested in hearing about xfs; when I used to admin
> IRIX boxes, I thought very highly of xfs. It was bulletproof. But
> I have no idea what it's like on Linux.
I've got some data sitting atop JFS; the next time I do a reinstall
"of stuff" I'm thinking of having some partitions for different
filesystems so that some DBs can be at least somewhat compared on an
assortment of filesystems.
As of 2.4.20, the options included with "standard" kernels are:
- ext3
- JFS
- ReiserFS
XFS is still in the "needs quasi-manual patching" stage, and I gather
is still a ways away from integration with the "Official Torvalds
Kernel Stream." That unfortunately means that you're always left with
the fragile matter of needing to keep kernels kicking around on other
systems. (The perpetual problem: What if a disk dies and your
filesystems are sitting in a form that requires that you compile a
kernel from scratch, thus dictating having a working system?
Blech...)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/fs.html
Sleep is a poor subsititute for caffeine. -Pat Dughi