Re: [gentoo-user] Fast file system for cache directory with lot's of files

[Nilesh Govindrajan <contact@nileshgr.com>]

On Mon 13 Aug 2012 08:28:15 PM IST, Michael Hampicke wrote:
>>     I guess traversing through directories may be faster with XFS,
>>     but in my experience ext4 perfoms better than XFS in regard to
>>     operations (cp, rm) on small files.
>>     I read that there are some tuning options for XFS and small
>>     files, but never tried it.
>>
>>     But if somone seconds XFS I will try it too.
>
>     It's been a while since I messed with this but isn't XFS the one
>     that hates power failures and such?
>
>     Dale
>
>     :-) :-)
>
>     --
>     I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
>
> Well, it's the delayed allocation of XFS (which prevents
> fragmentation) that does not like sudden power losses :) But ext4 has
> that too, you can disable it though - that should be true for XFS too.
> But the power situation in the datacenter has never been a problem so
> far, and even if the cache partition get's screwed, we can always
> rebuild it. Takes a few hours, but it would not be the end of the world :)

Yes, XFS hates power failures. I got a giant UPS for my home desktop to 
use XFS because of it's excellent performance ;-)

--
Nilesh Govindrajan
http://nileshgr.com