XFS Developer Takes Shots At Btrfs, EXT4

[curaga]

Quote: "I have a habit of simply typing "reboot" to restart the computer "

BLOODY HELL! You "find it strange" when people don't unmount their file systems before rebooting and discover errors!

I would "find it strange" if that user did NOT experience severe problems!

Not sure if serious... Distro shutdown scripts, called when you run "reboot", sync and umount disks.

[RahulSundaram]

My mind boggles that ext4 filesystems STILL are not supported with ext-tools for filesystems larger than 16TB..

This is not true anymore.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F17Ext4Above16T

[frantaylor]

even more brain damage

That's great if it truly is fixed. But I find it strange that even in 2011 some people complain about it. http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...earing-919115/

Quote: "I have a habit of simply typing "reboot" to restart the computer "

BLOODY HELL! You "find it strange" when people don't unmount their file systems before rebooting and discover errors!

I would "find it strange" if that user did NOT experience severe problems!

[mgmartin]

Happy User

I've been very happy running XFS on several production servers, laptops, and workstations over the past few years. The performance improvements are very noticeable. Keep up the good work!

[curaga]

Which is big-iron systems. How much testing does EXT4 have of exabyte file systems? Multi-terrabyte files spread across dozens of disks in RAID?

Probably quite a bit less than XFS.

But it's clearly not true if you are talking about desktop systems.

This. Even though JFS was designed for "huge" FS too, I understand it was only run on such with AIX, and so the linux jfs tools could not cope with >16tb until somewhat recently.

[accumulator]

Shrinking?

Does XFS support shrinking the filesystem already? Granted, that need doesn't arise often, but is still quite handy when reorganising partition layout..

[smitty3268]

I think he has a point about EXT4 if you look at where he's coming from

Which is big-iron systems. How much testing does EXT4 have of exabyte file systems? Multi-terrabyte files spread across dozens of disks in RAID?

Probably quite a bit less than XFS.

But it's clearly not true if you are talking about desktop systems.

[Ansla]

That's great if it truly is fixed. But I find it strange that even in 2011 some people complain about it. http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...earing-919115/

[ortango]

I kinda just agree with susikala. Esp after the fsck.btrfs announce, seems like just drama.
XFS is great for some things (that overlap with what btrfs hopefully will be even better at _in the future_). For now I am psyched about XFS improvements -- which is what I thought the talk was about. Why? Because XFS is infinity more reliable right now, and I use it. It would not be news to say that the ext4 has shortcomings and btrfs is still in serious development.
In essence what I am saying is that at least the only thing that Mason or Chinner have killed is ext4. ;-P hey where is reiser4 anyway ;-P

[frantaylor]

wikipedia dain bramage

P.S. In case you didn't know how XFS journaling works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS#Journaling

"Where recently modified data has not been flushed to disk before a system crash, XFS ensures that any unwritten data blocks are zeroed on reboot"

) :

This is what happens when you use Wikipedia as your source!

SEE the FAQ at xfs.org:

Q: Why do I see binary NULLS in some files after recovery when I unplugged the power?

Update: This issue has been addressed with a CVS fix on the 29th March 2007 and merged into mainline on 8th May 2007 for 2.6.22-rc1.