LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-15-2006, 12:18 PM   #1
Ashrack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu - Edgy Eft
Posts: 173

Rep: Reputation: 30
JFS vs XFS vs EXT3 --> power failure


From what I read is that XFS is more tuned for large file copies and has great problems when the power goes out.
On the other hand JFS is more of a compromise between small/large files and it has the lowest CPU UTILIZATION, perfect for 1ghz CPUs, please correct me if am wrong! But I do not know how does it compare to EXT3 when the power goes out?
 
Old 10-15-2006, 12:59 PM   #2
stress_junkie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04 and CentOS 5.5
Posts: 3,873

Rep: Reputation: 331Reputation: 331Reputation: 331Reputation: 331
Any file system could be damaged to the point of corrupting files if the power is suddenly shut off. You should purchase a good uninterruptible power supply.

Before I got my UPS I was using the ext2 file system. I never lost on that file system type.
 
Old 10-15-2006, 02:34 PM   #3
Ashrack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu - Edgy Eft
Posts: 173

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Lets say an investment in the UPS is out of question!
So how does JFS stack up:
 
Old 10-15-2006, 04:53 PM   #4
fair_is_fair
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 511

Rep: Reputation: 51
JFS is a terrific file system but not popular for reasons unknown to me although I have used it. I stick to ext3 due to compatibility between multiple distro installs.

Here is a very interesting article which may give you a little more insight.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3183866977.html
 
Old 11-27-2009, 07:16 AM   #5
shadowww
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Distribution: Arch linux
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
Hi, I know its old thread but it has great title, perfect for my problem so I hope noone will complain about reviving this.

I've been reading about filesystems lately and I'm not sure which one should I make in order for maximum safety of my data in case of power failure.

Wikipedia says that ext3 brings some risks because there isn't checksuming in journaling, I'd like some expert to comment on this if possible. Also on other two candidates JFS and XFS.

Thats a trillema.

Thanks.
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:14 PM   #6
Ashrack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu - Edgy Eft
Posts: 173

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Use XFS only if you have UPS. Probably the best is EXT4.
 
Old 11-27-2009, 01:14 PM   #7
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashrack View Post
Use XFS only if you have UPS. Probably the best is EXT4.
Not true, see:
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online...-Ext3-and-Ext4

If you want to use ext4, you should change the setting back to ext3 style.

I use JFS and have not had any problems, here's more about it:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/JFS_Filesystem

Also, if you configure XFS to your liking, it shouldn't have problems either.
 
Old 11-27-2009, 01:39 PM   #8
shadowww
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Distribution: Arch linux
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
I think major problem with xfs and jfs when comes to power failure is this:

Quote:
NOTE: JFS uses a journal to maintain consistency of metadata only. Thus, only consistency of metadata (and not actual file contents) can be assured in the case of improper shutdown. This is also the case for XFS and ReiserFS. Ext3, on the other hand, does support journaling of both metadata and data [5], though with a significant performance penalty, and not by default.
(source)
So ext3 seems to be best because of full journaling. I repeat again, that I don't care for my performances, they can't drop too low, but if I loose my data due power failure it would sux badly.

And no, UPS is not available option for me.

Quote:
Also, if you configure XFS to your liking, it shouldn't have problems either.
hmm can you give few tips and/or explain your opinion a bit further?

Thanks for help everyone!
 
Old 11-27-2009, 01:59 PM   #9
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
I don't know of any good XFS guides, and I can't seem to find any, but the see the FAQ:
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ
 
Old 11-28-2009, 07:03 AM   #10
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 3,902

Rep: Reputation: 775Reputation: 775Reputation: 775Reputation: 775Reputation: 775Reputation: 775Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowww View Post
I think major problem with xfs and jfs when comes to power failure is this:
Whether I agree with this depends considerably on whether you meant to write "a major problem" or "the major problem". I'd agree that it is a major problem but not the only major problem.

The other issue is that the more "advanced" (probably all journalling filesystems, to a greater or lesser extent) filesystems is that quite a lot changes depending on how exactly you set up that filesystem. So there isn't necessarily a 'filesystem x is safe, filesystem y is unsafe' kind of answer, but there may be 'filesystem x is safe, but only if set up in this particular way' answer...after all even for journalling filesystems, you could turn journalling off, although you probably wouldn't want to do that in most circumstances.

And, of course, although this isn't your main concern, this also impacts the performance issue, in that some of the changes for data security will reduce performance significantly.

There is some discussion of this area in the first link in H_TeXMeX_H's earlier post, although even a bit of that, even between the elevated individuals concerned, is rubbish (the discussion of, say, ext4's defaults is essentially irrelevant if distros choose a different default and people don't change that, which they largely don't).

And if you think that this was a useless, 'on the one hand...on the other' kind of answer, be grateful that you didn't ask about performance, because there the picture can be even more confusing and even with benchmarking there is so much interpretation required that you might wonder why people benchmark things at all.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to choose: JFS, XFS or ext3 ? spinner_0 Slackware 18 01-31-2006 08:52 PM
ext3 / samba power failure Blaumieser Linux - General 3 03-05-2005 06:36 AM
RedHat=EXT3 Choice=reiserfs,jfs,xfs myutopia Linux - Enterprise 7 07-09-2004 01:09 PM
jfs and xfs - experience anydoby? crashmeister Linux - General 4 11-30-2002 11:52 AM
ext3, reiserfs, jfs, and xfs ? sapilas Linux - Distributions 3 05-13-2002 09:22 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration