4 ms·
Are other file systems better off with recovery when interacting with virtual disks and host power failure?
by bsuh 10y ago
Are other file systems better off with recovery when interacting with virtual disks and host power failure?
- ryao 10y agoThe short answer is no.
- pkaye 10y agoSearch online for published papers related to "IRON File Systems." Some researchers injected errors into various parts of common file systems and see how well they recovered. I think ZFS was the best of the bunch though that research is from a few years back and things may have improved elsewhere.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fulafel 10y agoThe IRON paper doesn't mention ZFS, I found some citing papers that focus on ZFS but have no comparisons.
- pkaye 10y agoYes you are right. I believe it was a different paper by the same research group... http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kadav/zfs/zfsrel.pdf http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kadav/zfs/zfsrel.pdf
- IgorPartola 10y agoThey are not, but they are better at swallowing the errors and not bothering you with such details. ZFS fails fast & early, while EXT4 will fail when you realize your Postgres DB is borked. I guess it's possible that some type of disk command timing could cause unexpected lockups or slowdowns that you wouldn't get with a system that doesn't try to control the hardware to quite the same extent as ZFS, but my (cursory) understanding is that it's rare/hardware specific. My personal take is that running ZFS on hardware that lies is no worse than running EXT4 on it. YMMV as I'm not a storage expert.
- aidenn0 10y agoShort answer "no" with a longer answer of "ZFS is sometimes better than most other options"
- fulafel 10y agoIf the storage lies about syncs, the best you can hope for is replaying a consistent state somewhere in the past. Log structured filesystems with checksums would be a good bet here.