Xfs fsck online dating
For filesystem benchmarks that have try to saturate the filesystem's write bandwidth and/or which also have a very high levels of metadata updates, XFS and Reiserfs will tend to do much better than ext3.Fortunately, many real-world workloads don't have this characteristic, which is why ext3 tends to perform just fine in practice in many applications, despite what would appear to be much worse benchmarks numbers, at least for some benchmarks.
Having a UPS won't save you from that particular XFS misfeature.
The reason why it is done is to avoid a potential security problem, where a file could be left with someone else's data. that's more accurately labelled something like a filesystem 'horror reanimator' than 'consistency check'.
Ext3 solves this problem by delaying the journal commit until the data blocks are written, as opposed to trashing all open files. As with all reanimations of the horror genre, extra arms, legs, tails, and bad attitudes are likely.
Again, it's a solution which can impact performance, but at least in my opinion, for a filesystem, performace is Job #2. :-) As I recall, there are several other btree based filesystems out there (xfs..
etc) do they perform similar nefarious acts under fsck?