From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ilu-0002fE-Ib for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:32:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEAD51C03D; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:30:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAEF1C03D for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:30:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so11053030fxm.40 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:30:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:subject:date:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=OIu+JZLepoeDzKISpucwU23fpOYk17S4xvZHoT1ykFw=; b=xB7auUbn9k7gNA2WrEiXwUy271uQiH6PSIE07MBFzdkhflDTEGsO61u3eWel2wsaf8 sRa7glQmQ0SW7FRz/Pdpt6OUAwTIPPkryhWqLGgH1ZlVFwF5DUAQmyciivBrRHkotg4e A5o9HVaXWNezjn62a+TmJTnK59C3kxS6wi9K8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; b=aITRYXMlQD9/MlIHGXe1sesH5U/R3Py3zj/IMFifAmcJSVpI+U42FtAOs6To6/TBo0 TnzWyyftO3hbngV1p/u+rEhzgcwmcdDAZo4TNAbJ8Rra0vARGaOd+MOBLXNlWj2miaas cRmSxoF2FvGpMpGLQbZEzZvjCHzGq4L+ffd4o= Received: by 10.223.127.210 with SMTP id h18mr3083319fas.77.1300966236150; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from energy.localnet (p4FC74AB5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.199.74.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c24sm3526319fak.7.2011.03.24.04.30.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4d8b2b5b.984cdf0a.1c4c.ffff8432@mx.google.com> From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] the best filesystem for server: XFS or JFS (or?) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:30:29 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/4.6 beta4 (Linux/2.6.36.4r4; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <6cb4ed45cc29b7658a628225a6f2bc53.squirrel@www.antarean.org> References: <4D87A7C6.1060502@gmail.com> <4d8a231d.4b0fdf0a.17b1.0d0f@mx.google.com> <6cb4ed45cc29b7658a628225a6f2bc53.squirrel@www.antarean.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 98dbdb07a5f7d37c074928d39c95ca71 On Thursday 24 March 2011 08:49:52 J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Wed, March 23, 2011 5:43 pm, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 23 March 2011 14:04:23 Mr. Jarry wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann > >> > >> wrote: > >> > And if you don't care about barriers, jfs might be a good choice. > >> > >> Knowing nothing about "barriers" I tried to find some info and > >> came accross this article: > >> > >> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/Deciding-when-to-use-L > >> inux-f ile-system-barriers > >> > >> It says, barriers can not work with device mapper (raid, lvm). > >> If it is true (?) then because of having all partitions in raid1 (md), > >> I need not worry about barriers. Whatever filesystem I picked out, > >> I could not use barriers... > >> > >> Jarry > > > > md raid devices can do barriers. Don't know about lvm. But lvm is such a > > can > > of worms I am surprised people still recommend it. > > What is wrong with LVM? > I've been using it successfully without any issues for years now. > It does what it says on the box. it is another layer that can go wrong. Why take the risk? There are enough cases of breakage after upgrades - and besides snapshots... is the amount of additional code running really worth it? Especially with bind mounting?