[gentoo-user] What is the most error resistant filesystem?

October 03rd, 2011 - 11:50 pm ET by Pandu Poluan | Report spam

Hello people!

Now, I have the same question as this guy:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?idf651

I.e., what is the most robust filesystem for Linux?

The box will be used as a gateway/firewall for a branch office, so I really
couldn't care less about filesystem performance. But the utility power there
is horrendous, so I need something that can shrug off a catastrophic power
loss, and/or very fast fsck.

I'd also appreciate any tips on mount options to further enhance robustness.

TIA!

Rgds,


<p>Hello people!</p>
<p>Now, I have the same question as this guy:</p>
<p><a href="https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic...;>https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=66651</a></p>
<p>I.e., what is the most robust filesystem for Linux?</p>
<p>The box will be used as a gateway/firewall for a branch office, so I really couldn&#39;t care less about filesystem performance. But the utility power there is horrendous, so I need something that can shrug off a catastrophic power loss, and/or very fast fsck.</p>

<p>I&#39;d also appreciate any tips on mount options to further enhance robustness.</p>
<p>TIA!</p>
<p>Rgds,<br>
</p>

email Follow the discussionReplies 7 repliesReplies Make a reply

Replies

#1 Michael Mol
October 04th, 2011 - 12:30 am ET | Report spam
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Hello people!

Now, I have the same question as this guy:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?idf651

I.e., what is the most robust filesystem for Linux?

The box will be used as a gateway/firewall for a branch office, so I really
couldn't care less about filesystem performance. But the utility power there
is horrendous, so I need something that can shrug off a catastrophic power
loss, and/or very fast fsck.



ISO9660? Read-only, error correction, and have logging go over the
network to something else.

(Well, ISO9660 isn't required; any read-only media with a read-only
filesystem would probably do.)

:wq

Similar topics