Slashdot Mirror
New Ext3 vs ReiserFS benchmarks
An anonymous reader writes "Saw this new benchmark on the linux-kernel mailing list. Although NAMESYS, the developers of ReiserFS has many benchmarks on their site, they only have one Ext3 benchmark. The new benchmark tests Ext3 in ordered and writeback mode versus ReiserFS with and without the notail mount option. Better than expected results for Ext3. Big difference between ordered and writeback modes."
You're on crack. Hash collisions incur only a performance hit, not lost data.
Any benchmarks on XFS vs. ext3/ReiserFS?
ext3 with writeback is indeed safer than ext2, inasmuch that all corruption will be with regard to the data -- your metadata is still safe.
Now, data corruption can be a Very Bad Thing, depending on what you're doing... but in many cases, preventing metadata corruption (and thus being sure that your filesystem is always usable) is Good Enough.
There is also an apcupsd. This way, you can have one machine that is hooked to the UPS (no need for additional hardware to let multiple machine monitor the UPS.) When power goes down, the apcupsd then lets the other servers know what is going on (power off, power on, shut down now, etc...) Ports to Unicies galore, and winders.
This all assumes that you have the network on a UPS and with the power out all machines can still talk.
Pretty nice tool with tons of options. http://www.apcupsd.org (oddly, with the exception of the what's new pages of the docs, the url isn't listed in the docs.)
Of course, I like my option - buy a UPS with enough capacity to hold the whole room for about 30 minutes (40KW) and a big ole generator in case things go down for a while.