4 ms·
I've seen data loss due to bugs: * ext3/ext4 * reiserfs (reiserfsck used to eat data *all the time*) * xfs * jfs (can't remember kernel version, but fr
by feld 11y ago
I've seen data loss due to bugs:
* ext3/ext4
* reiserfs (reiserfsck used to eat data *all the time*)
* xfs
* jfs (can't remember kernel version, but friend lost tons of data)
* ntfs
Filesystems I haven't lost data on:
* ufs, ufs2, ffs -- the BSD ufs variants
* zfs
Filesystems I haven't done much with:
* hammer (would be amazing for maildir storage)
* btrfs (avoiding intentionally)
* reiser4 (barely used it and then the whole murdering happened)
* tux (always sounded nice)
There are lots of other filesystems with special use cases, but I'm ignoring those. These are just more relevant general purpose filesystems.
And note that filesystems without journals, logs, or being CoW (ext2, [ex]FAT, etc) I'm ignoring because they aren't designed to handle abuse, power loss, etc.
This paper about linux filesystems is worrying: https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/presentation/pillai https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/...
- kabdib 11y agoYeah, avoiding file systems that don't have any transaction nature is a sound principle. I was dismayed that NTFS "was transactional" but that those transactions didn't mean that it saved user data, it just made sure that filenames and directory structure was preserved. That's entirely missing the point, guys. (Later, I got a peek at the user-data-level transactional extension to NTFS, and had a good case of the horrors. Run away; MSFT is deprecating it, last I heard, and good thing, too).
- grogers 11y agoMost filesystems default to saving only metadata in the journal. Writing all file data through the journal is much more expensive (unless you are log-structured).