Is JFS stable?
 

Yet another JFS update in the changelogs. The errors fixed look serious to me. Is JFS fit for production use? After all a file system failure is potentially catastrophic.

I don't know which Changelogs you're looking at, but the one for the latest stable kernel is here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kern...eLog-2.6.16.20

There is no mention of JFS in there.

I've never used JFS, but according to this article:

http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz

it is one of the better Linux filesystems at the moment.

The summary is on freshmeat.net

Here's the official changelog:
http://jfs.cvs.sourceforge.net/*chec...?revision=1.29

I think the most dangerous of these is probably the 1st one, the others look like hard-to-hit bugs (but I haven't checked the source, so I can't tell for sure).

I think I may have experienced the first bug you mentioned. On the mythtv setup I have, I am using JFS for the disc storing videos. When I first tried to setup my disc with JFS, I used the -c switch and it looked like it went into infinite loop. I had to kill it and run the mkfs.jfs command without the -c switch.

Tux,

Good thread. I was thinking of trying out this file system, as I read it's super fast for old hardware. Now I won't I dont need any head ache's.

You're short changing yourself.

Every filesystem has its faults.

Maybe it is stable now?
You would expect jfs to be as good or better than some of its rivals because the resources of IBM are behind it

Then you'd expect NTFS or FAT to be as good or better than it's rivals because of the resources of Microsoft behind it. A poor argument indeed ;)

But seriously, most of the "big name" filesystems are good and stable but I still prefer to stick to the "known good" ones. Ext3 is my fs of choice (speed is not an issue, but data recoverability as well as backwards and future compatibility are) but reiserfs also has it's followers. Less people use JFS than either of the above, however, and I should imagine ext3 or reiser has the most users.

Just guessing from what I see (there's probably stats around somewhere that I've seen and am basing this on), I'd say that the popularity list, in terms of installed filesytems on Linux machines, goes:

Ext2/3
FAT (for older disks, digital cameras etc.)
Reiser
NTFS
JFS
XFS and other "weird" fs

In the OS world, more users ~= more eyes ~= more problems found ~= more problems fixed. Who knows if there's a minor bug in the Amiga filesystem under Linux? But an Ext2/3 bug is likely to be picked up on and fixed VERY quickly.

Linux on NTFS? Write support is still not 100%.

Actually NTFS is not that bad for a roughly 10 year old FS, certainly one of Microsofts better efforts.
Maybe XP could have had something a bit better.

Their filesystem is one of the main areas where Microsoft are being left behind. NTFS was first used in 1993. Compared to FAT back then, it was brilliant. But that is hardly an achievement. FAT was still 16 bit in 1993.

With many 64 bit *nix filesystems reaching maturity, NTFS is now starting to look really crappy. Why should one need to defragment a filesystem in 2006? NTFS has become yet another Microsoft Polished Turd (tm).

To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson: Saying that NTFS is the best of the Microsoft filesystems is "like saying that syphillus is the best of the sexually transmitted diseases."

I have had no problems with JFS so far (it's only a month that I have started using it). I mostly use reiserfs or ext3 but I went with JFS for my mythtv setup since mythtv docs (and some of the websites) mentioned it was very fast at deleting very large files. Other option is XFS but I guess it is just a matter of coin toss if you are selecting between the two. Both fs have their strong and weak points which makes them a little difficult to compare.

BTW, good thread :D

Tux,