Re: [gentoo-user] OT:Choosing a filesystem

[Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1779 bytes --]

On Friday 02 April 2010 16:28:43 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:09:30 +0200, meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote:
> >> Then: I often transer videos from my DVB-T-receiver/recorder 
to my
> >> harddisk to cut out the advertising and to transcode the 
videos to
> >> somethings better than "ts" (transport streams),
> >
> > These tend to be bigger, often in the GB range, so I'd use a 
separate
> > filesystem for them with XFS, which handles large files 
better in my
> > experience.
> 
> He mentioned in one of the first few posts that he regularly 
has hard
> shutdowns.  I took that as pulling the plug.  The last bit of 
experience
> I had with XFS, it does not like that sort of thing to happen.   
Each
> time I had a hard shutdown, I had to reinstall the OS.  Has XFS 
changed
> so that power loss is not s problem or should he not use this 
after all?
> 
> Would hate for the OP to use XFS if it has not improved in that 
area.

XFS was ropey in its early days.  I had to re-install a partition 
once too (on a laptop!).  It is much more stable now (have not 
had a problem in the last 4+ years).

reiserfs is absolutely bullet proof here, with hundreds of 
crashes on a machine that had bad memory (like twice or three 
times a day I would have to pull the plug, for months on end 
until I isolated the error on a memory module).

reiser4 seems to be on a class of its own in terms of 
performance.  Perhaps not as forgiving on hard crashes as the 
reiserfs?  Not sure.  It's early days yet on this machine, but I 
have only praises for it so far.  I just hope they incorporate it 
in the kernel so that I don't have to manually patch it every 
time.

This is just my 2c's - so YMMV.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]