Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: NetBSD 6.0 Is On Approach With New Features

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vertexSymphony View Post
    Which filesystems are you comparing ?
    ext2 (async) vs ufs (sync)
    ext4 vs ufs

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    ext2 (async) vs ufs (sync)
    ext4 vs ufs
    UFS (I assume UFS2?) with which features enabled? (softupdates, journaling,etc ) ...comparing UFS2 against ext2 is unfair and shouldn't even be mentioned.
    And sorry, but UFS, even with journaling is not rock-solid ... if you really need that robustness (even if it's weird, because in practically everywhere you usually have UPS units), ZFS might be a better choice, but this is a different beast on his own and should be compared to a similar like btrfs.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vertexSymphony View Post
    UFS (I assume UFS2?) with which features enabled? (softupdates, journaling,etc ) ...comparing UFS2 against ext2 is unfair and shouldn't even be mentioned.
    And sorry, but UFS, even with journaling is not rock-solid ... if you really need that robustness (even if it's weird, because in practically everywhere you usually have UPS units), ZFS might be a better choice, but this is a different beast on his own and should be compared to a similar like btrfs.
    There are no reliability differences between UFS1 and UFS2 (without additional features).
    With no features (like softupdates, journaling) enabled it's more reliable. Sync file systems are far more reliable.
    UFS is still more solid than ext*. And there is also hammerfs.
    Why comparing UFS2 (without softupdates or journaling) against ext2 is unfair?

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    ext2 is asynchronous by default -> not reliable
    Data loss on power failure or crash with ext4, especially early versions (like 2.6.30).

    Compare /etc.
    Data loss on BSD file systems as well. On Linux you have much better choice.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    This is not proof.
    *BSD might be better server than Linux, because it's more careful with your data ... It doesn't risk for better performance.
    It's not more careful. Linux also doesn't risk stability for performance, but it's a matter of configuration. You can use Ext3/4 with safe options and you're done.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Data loss on BSD file systems as well. On Linux you have much better choice.
    Data loss on BSD file systems is less likely than on Linux. I had corrupted ext2 (fsck failed to fix it) and lost data on ext4.
    What better choice? btrfs?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's not more careful. Linux also doesn't risk stability for performance, but it's a matter of configuration. You can use Ext3/4 with safe options and you're done.
    Only truly safe option is sync, which is not available for ext3/4.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Only truly safe option is sync, which is not available for ext3/4.
    There are options for immediate write on both ext3 and 4. Not only that, but in every configuration I have ever known ext4 has a huge performance advantage over any version of UFS safe options or not.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Data loss on BSD file systems is less likely than on Linux. I had corrupted ext2 (fsck failed to fix it) and lost data on ext4.
    What better choice? btrfs?
    No, it's not more likely on Linux. BSD file systems suck and ext2 sucks as well... Use Ext 3 or 4 with safe mount options. There is sync in ext4...
    Last edited by kraftman; 06-02-2012 at 03:41 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    No, it's not more likely on Linux. BSD file systems suck and ext2 sucks as well... Use Ext 3 or 4 with safe mount options. There is sync in ext4...
    100% agree.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •