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?

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.

Lets say an investment in the UPS is out of question!
So how does JFS stack up:

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

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.

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.

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

(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.

hmm can you give few tips and/or explain your opinion a bit further?

Thanks for help everyone!

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

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.