Linux - GeneralThis 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
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.