[wplug] FC2 to Debian-ish

[Duncan Hutty]

Michael Skowvron wrote:
> Duncan Hutty wrote:
> 
>>
>> I would suggest that you stay away from XFS unless you have one of:
>> 1) very large filesystems (>2T)
>> 2) very large number of files
>> because it's probably not necessary and worth the bother.
>>
>> You will need good UPS for your server, preferably enough backup time 
>> to cope with and an automated mechanism for shutting your machine 
>> down. oh, and I would only want to put XFS on RAID. As you say, 
>> unplanned shutdowns are _very_ bad for XFS filesystems.
> 
> 
> I would disagree with Duncan. I would trust no other filesystem with my 
> data. XFS is as appropriate for a root drive as it is for "larger" 
> drives and I am so confident in XFS that I would be comfortable dropping 
> my server as many times as it takes to prove that XFS no worse than the 
> others.

I didn't mean to suggest that XFS is particularly inappropriate for 
system drives; I only meant to suggest that I wouldn't make the effort 
to change to it unless XFS were particularly suitable.

  I don't deny for a moment that XFS is perfectly capable of handling 
most common filesystem scenarios, including root drives; I was merely 
attempting to highlight the situations where XFS is considered to be 
particularly strong. And to underscore the idea that, due to its more 
extreme write caching behaviour, that it is statistically more likely to 
suffer from problems after unexpected shutdowns than filesystems that do 
less write caching.

 >If your data is valuable enough that you really want to minimize 
 >filesystem inconsistencies, you'll always want to have a UPS 
regardless >of what filesystem you are using.

I completely agree, but recognise that in the real world many systems 
that ought to have UPS, don't.

Duncan Hutty