| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
goprisko
n00b
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Shenzhen China
|
 Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 2:27 pm Post subject: Why I prefer jfs to any other format for partitions |
 |
|
Over the years, I have tried various formats for partitions:
Reiser, Ext2,3 linux native, and jfs.
Living on a ship as I do, my system must cope with power outages, and emergency reboots.
Only jfs has proven able to seamlessly recover from these mishaps, without loss of data.
The others failed at one time or other.
I recommend all new installations use jfs for their file system format.
INDY
_________________
To go where none have gone . . . .
To see what none have seen . . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
666threesixes666
Veteran
Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1248
Location: 42.68n 85.41w
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JFS is god like.... do not be fooled about XFS... JFS has the best io speeds, file system checks, and stability out of any of the other file systems i have tested. it is a "tip/trick" to use JFS instead of default ext file systems. JFS is from IBM... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ext4 has done well for me recovering from power outages due to the wonky aftermarket battery I have in my laptop. Its improvements over ext3 include journal checksums and fast fsck (minutes instead of hours).
Ext4 has the advantage over jfs of a much larger userbase, so presumably bugs are found and squashed faster. With respect to performance, here's one set of benchmarks.
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaglover
Watchman
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 6609
Location: Saint Amant, Acadiana
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do not deceive yourself, you cannot have great performance and ability to cope with power outages at the same time. Get a UPS.
_________________
Please learn how to denote units correctly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 266
|
| Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
No love for Btrfs?  Personally I prefer and have been using on my Arch "laptop" for about a year and a half now with no issues.
The snapshots and file compression are really nice. I finally converted my ext4 partitions to it a few days ago and copied back everything to make use of compress=lzo (basic 'general use real time' compression) and have been blown away by the readback difference on this gentoo box, a good example I found straight away was that after running eix-sync, eix-update was called as per usual and instead of taking almost/over 30 seconds to go through nearly 160 dirs it now takes less then 15 seconds - I could not bold that enough if I tried.
Last edited by GFCCAE6xF on Thu May 23, 2013 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 266
|
| Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spinning.
Edit, I just realized a very big mistake, I actually meant to type less then 15 seconds eg, better then 50% better. Let me correct that!
Edit 2, If you are interested, a second read of all that data takes less then 1 second though.
Note to self: Stop posting on too many threads at once. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6242
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaglover wrote: | | Do not deceive yourself, you cannot have great performance and ability to cope with power outages at the same time. |
Sure, you can. In theory, this is not an issue at all as has been proved by Reiser4. It is a question how good it is implemented in the filesystem. The journal implementation in ext4 of course means performance loss since it implies duplicate write. I do not know how clever it is implemented btrfs, jfs, xfs, although I can imagine that btrfs does not need duplicate write, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 41717
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Journaling does not prevent data loss. It ensures the filesystem is in a self consistent state after the content of the journal has been used to recover the filesystem (to a self consistent state).
This normally means that sometings between a few seconds and a few minutes of user data has been lost.
Get a real UPS that does dual conversions, test the battery at least once a month, do backups and read my signature.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaglover
Watchman
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 6609
Location: Saint Amant, Acadiana
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | Jaglover wrote: | | Do not deceive yourself, you cannot have great performance and ability to cope with power outages at the same time. |
Sure, you can. In theory, this is not an issue at all as has been proved by Reiser4. It is a question how good it is implemented in the filesystem. The journal implementation in ext4 of course means performance loss since it implies duplicate write. I do not know how clever it is implemented btrfs, jfs, xfs, although I can imagine that btrfs does not need duplicate write, either. |
Wow. ReiserFS can do all that. It is clearly above laws of nature then. Too bad I think it is a crappy filesystem and will never use it. 
_________________
Please learn how to denote units correctly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomk
Bodhisattva
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 7221
Location: Sat in front of my computer
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Documentation, Tips & Tricks to Off the Wall, discussions about the best FS belong in OTW.
_________________
Search | Read | Answer | Report | Strip |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sikpuppy
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reiser murders the competition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 266
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomk wrote: | | Moved [...] to Off the Wall |
...
| sikpuppy wrote: | | Reiser murders the competition. |
And it only took all of 5 minutes, impressive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6242
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaglover wrote: | | Wow. ReiserFS can do all that. It is clearly above laws of nature then. |
If you have no clue how filesystems work and how things can be implement (and in fact in some filesystems are implemented this way; perhaps also in btfr, jfs, xfs - as I said, I don't know how it is there) - I suggest that you keep off the discussion instead of spreading silly nonsense and calling experiences from a bad implementation even a law of nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17502
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After having worked with ZFS, others seem quaint with regards to ease of administration. It's one of those things that now that it exists, it is somewhat obvious and surprising nobody thought of/implemented it earlier. Use case technical merits of others notwithstanding.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2045
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | After having worked with ZFS, others seem quaint with regards to ease of administration. It's one of those things that now that it exists, it is somewhat obvious and surprising nobody thought of/implemented it earlier. Use case technical merits of others notwithstanding. |
I concur.
Only drawback - I have PORTDIR on /var.. /var on zfs... on 5400rpm disks... and it makes emerge -auv world fucking freaking slow....
_________________
Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males
I identify as a dirty penismensch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JFS? Damn... I saw the thread title and the name rung a bell... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17502
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| energyman76b wrote: | | Only drawback - I have PORTDIR on /var.. /var on zfs... on 5400rpm disks... and it makes emerge -auv world fucking freaking slow.... |
Yeah, I haven't used it on Linux yet, so I'm not sure how to get around that issue. On Solaris db servers, I've seen arc_cache used to improve performance (from unusable, to production useable). I'm not certain if it would help in this situation. Though I'm not sure if /var in general is an advantage on ZFS (PORTDIR certainly).
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6242
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Under Linux the major drawback of zfs is the same as that of Reiser4: It is not really supported in the official kernel and probably never wlil. Due to this drawback, I would recommend none of these two. btrfs is the substitute for zfs which is supposed to be used on linux instead, and AFAIK it should have comparable features. Or does anybody know something crucial missing in btrfs but available in zfs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | Under Linux the major drawback of zfs is the same as that of Reiser4: It is not really supported in the official kernel and probably never wlil. Due to this drawback, I would recommend none of these two. btrfs is the substitute for zfs which is supposed to be used on linux instead, and AFAIK it should have comparable features. Or does anybody know something crucial missing in btrfs but available in zfs? |
not having the "copies" feature in btrfs compared to ZFS is a deal-breaker for me:
https://blogs.oracle.com/relling/entry/zfs_copies_and_data_protection
I'm not using raids - so nevertheless having several copies of most-valuable data on one disc at the same time with checksumming not prone to hash collisions is a clear win (+ additional backup drives of course) and in my opinion is a no-brainer
this ensures that there's possibly no loss of those - ever (virtually at least)
to contribute to the topic (JFS):
I just re-tried it a few weeks ago and there were some issues with it kind of "looping" / "spinning" while backing up several directories via rsync
either it took very long to complete or I was too impatient and interrupted and re-started the job where it eventually finished
other issues I had with it (several years ago) was data loss (on /home), data corruption & loss after hardlock/not shutting down properly (on root) and some other
besides that it was pretty fast, low on the CPU, efficient in storage and some other points
this could have changed meanwhile but I'm back to ext4, xfs and ZFS as major filesystem types
reiser4 & reiserfs seem to have become somewhat less reliable with recent kernel changes - what a shame, those were the most-reliable so far for me
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa
Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6242
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I just checked: It seems that btrfs does "journaling" clever, too, i.e., no duplicate writes as in ext{3,4} or reiser3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2045
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
btrfs misses basic features and despite all the time spent on it and all the promises is still an unstable mess.
Thanks a lot. ZFS on the other hand just works. You set it up - and forget about it.
_________________
Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males
I identify as a dirty penismensch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17502
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
energyman76b, are you using zfs-fuse, or zfsonlinux? I'm assuming the latter, but thought I'd ask.
For the btrfs crowd, I thought this was an interesting (and encouraging) read: The btrfs backup experiment.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
o'bogamol
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 90
Location: Detroit, Michigan - The Home of Rock and Roll
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaglover wrote: | | Do not deceive yourself, you cannot have great performance and ability to cope with power outages at the same time. Get a UPS. |
...For your laptop with a wonky battery.
_________________
"History began on July 4,1776. Everything before that was a mistake." -Ron Swanson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
