sd performance tests, bonnie++ with different filesystems.
gb at bsdmn.com
Sat Jun 26 11:19:34 CEST 2010
> XFS is not prone to power failures anymore or it's not an issue on uSD
(without big cache as normal drives)?
i thought it is same to btrfs? i am using xfs on desktop for storing
data like films, audio and other big and non-critical data, have no
problems for 5 years. i've heard about 0 files, after power failure,
which were somehow intelligently described (and seem fixed
) i think this is only on writes. i took that into accout, using to
for / and /usr, which are changed only on system upgrades. why do you
think xfs is less proof to to power failures that others?
>> - flash dying
>no big problem on replacable uSD
yeah, it's much better to replace sd once in year for example but have +30% r/w speed during year.
>> - problem with bootloaders
>if you load kernel from different partition then I don't see any problem
with brtfs rootfs.
yeah, I used ext2 for /boot -> uboot is happy.
i even used GPT for fun, so finally my partitions numbered 1,2,3,4,... without 'extendeds'
so far, i didn't notice some significant difference except it only fsck /boot for a long time.
More information about the community