Re: Good, recent FS comparison?
From: George N. White III <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-20 21:00:37
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Matt Stegman wrote:
This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On XFS, which doesn't use ordered mode, under certain circumstances you may see files which are the correct size, with correct times, etc, but with only null bytes for the data.
Another way to look at this: in some case, e.g., transaction processing, the priority is to make sure no data are lost. The opposite situation is where you have large volumes of data coming in, e.g., remote sensing, rendering farms, big numerical simulations. If something breaks you are losing data until the system is back. With XFS you have a consistent filesystem immediately, but you may want to look carefully at the files being written when the problem occurred.
In my experience it's not that big a deal; I can almost always easily recreate data which could be lost by being written out just before a crash or power loss. I put important systems on an UPS and use stable kernels, and I've never personally seen the null data problem.
Clients and other data sources like satellite dishes often break at inconvenient times. Write a large structured file like hdf from an NFS client and pull the network plug or turn off the client when the client job finishes but before the data has all been written. You should endup with a consistent filesystem but a sparse file.
Currently, I believe only ext3 and reiserfs support ordered mode. I'm not sure if reiser4's journaling is ordered or not.
I don't thnk you can make a blanket statement -- different horses for different courses. -- George N. White III [off-list ref]