Re: Linux file systems

["Tom Metro-12" <user=71@nabble.blu.org>]

 [hidden email] wrote: 
> JFS and XFS behaved similarly to each other, in that big files and 
> moderately large amounts of moderately large/small files worked well. 
> Worked well in a high write and file creation environment. IBM's JFS 
> seemed more stable and with a better tool chain. 

If your need is for storing large files and having fast deletes, then 
these should be a good choice, and were both recommended by MythTV users 
a few years ago when I set up my MythTV box. I'd recommend doing some 
data mining in their mailing list to see what the latest recommendations 
are. 

I ended up choosing XFS, and while I haven't tried JFS to compare, I did 
find the XFS tools - at least the ones packaged for Ubuntu - to be a bit 
buggy, and I had to file a few bugs: 

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xfsprogs/+bug/81711
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xfsprogs/+bug/81717

To work around the problems I just reverted to a prior version. They 
might have been Ubuntu-specific build problems, and they have probably 
since been resolved. 

But these bugs gave me the impression that XFS isn't widely used on Ubuntu. 


> I have a project that may require a million plus directories. 

That sounds like you want a file system optimized for file indexing, 
rather than large files. RiserFS probably was the best in that area. I 
don't recall if Ext4 addresses this, and as Jerry mentioned may not be 
ready for production in your time frame. 

You may need to resort to a hybrid solution, with an index stored in a 
real database. 

  -Tom 

-- 
Tom Metro 
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA 
"Enterprise solutions through open source." 
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss