3 ms·
I want to throw in another XFS data-eating anecdote. When I used it, I found it had a tendency to zero out files which were open for writing during a system cr
by colanderman 15y ago
I want to throw in another XFS data-eating anecdote. When I used it, I found it had a tendency to zero out files which were open for writing during a system crash.
I've been using JFS now for 6 years or so and have never had files go missing on me. JFS routinely takes second place to XFS in various benchmarks but still far outperforms ext3 and the like.
- RexRollman 15y agoI always thought that was interesting because on my computer, JFS feels faster than XFS does (especially when using Pacman, on Arch Linux, which creates lots of small files). Personally, I have never lost data with XFS or JFS.
- gcp 15y agoWhen I used it, I found it had a tendency to zero out files which were open for writing during a system crash. This was pretty much a FAQ and very much by design. See for example: http://madduck.net/blog/2006.08.11:xfs-zeroes/ http://madduck.net/blog/2006.08.11:xfs-zeroes/
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- colanderman 15y agoInteresting. I don't buy the security argument though. If, after a crash, the file size is larger than the actual extents, why not just truncate the file size to match the extents?
- gcp 15y agoBecause there's no guarantees the extents actually point to the file data.
- Zak 15y agoI had this happen once too. As I recall, the machine lost power after a cached write and before the data was actually written to disk. The file was zeroed and all its former contents lost. My friend, who had borrowed the computer to write a paper and lost hours of work was very upset. I switched all my XFS filesystems to something else that day.