[clug] EXT4 Reliability
daniel at rimspace.net
Sun Oct 4 17:26:16 MDT 2009
Ian McLeod <ianmcleod75 at gmail.com> writes:
> So EXT4 is more of a performance than stability enhancement then
Let me emphasize that again: today, ext4 is higher performance, but less
stable, than ext3. *TODAY* This *IS* going to change, and ext4 will replace
ext3 as standard in due time.
As an example: the next stable kernel release will fix a (fairly rare) kernel
oops caused by a bug in the ext4 code. It has been quite some time since ext3
hit many of those.
Given time — a few years of people testing it with easily replaced data —
ext4 will be a very compelling replacement for ext3. It just needs that extra
time to mature.
> I should have used EXT3 on my backup drive - oh well.. But if performance
> improves then it would be good on this laptop I just installed with
> encrypted EXT4 filesystems.
*nod* Alternately, you could use XFS, which has many of the same advantages
and drawbacks, but has many years more testing behind it, so is a more
conservative choice to gain the same advantages.
I use XFS on an encrypted disk, on MD-RAID10,f2, which gives quite good
performance on this laptop.
 ...and a sad number testing it with their only copy of critical data, but
we should all try to discourage that, /before/ they lose that data.
 ...because that performance /does/ have some costs, like the risk that
unwritten extents and no more sync-every-five-seconds presents.
✣ Daniel Pittman ✉ daniel at rimspace.net ☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
Looking for work? Love Perl? In Melbourne, Australia? We are hiring.
More information about the linux