It seems to me that you want both resiliency (able to suffer a drive failure) and checksums of the files you have on there as well. Would it make more sense to use 'tripwire' with an ext4 filesystem? I know that rock solid filesystems are my choice. I've looked at using XFS and JFS in the past... but the downsides were just too much for my tastes. Esp since I do like to upgrade kernels and such. Being able to resize the filesystem (offline is fine) is a winner. Online resizing would be even better, but that's a much tougher nut to crack. Chuck> Hi Jeff, its nice to provoke a response out of you...when are you Chuck> coming to a meeting? :-) Chuck> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:40:09AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
I wouldn't trust my data to btrfs, especially if you're using anything other than the default mkfs and mount options. But don't take my word for it, have a look through the btrfs mailing list archives[1].
Chuck> I see what you mean. People are still asking questions "how do I fix Chuck> this broken fs?" and being told to upgrade to linux kernel 4.0.
I have no experience with zfs on linux, but I've heard that data checksums have a signficant performance impact. I don't have any data on that, so you should probably do your own benchmarking to verify things perform well enough for your workload.
If I were you, I'd use xfs.
Chuck> I don't like XFS because it can't be shrunk in place. Too many times Chuck> I've needed to shrink one LV to make space for another LV. Chuck> _______________________________________________ Chuck> Wlug mailing list Chuck> Wlug@mail.wlug.org Chuck> http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug