----- Original Message -----
| On Tuesday 12 April 2011 17:36:39 John Jasen wrote:
| > On 04/12/2011 10:21 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
| > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Alain PÃan
| > > <alain.pean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > > <mailto:alain.pean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
| > <snipped: two recommendations for XFS>
| >
| > I would chime in with a dis-commendation for XFS. At my previous
| > employer, two cases involving XFS resulted in irrecoverable data
| > corruption. These were on RAID systems running from 4 to 20 TB.
|
| Can someone(who actually knows) share with us, what is the state of
| xfs-utils,
| how stable and usable are they for recovery of broken XFS filesystems?
|
| Marian
|
| _______________________________________________
| CentOS mailing list
| CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
| http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 64-bit platforms the tools are totally stable, but it does depend on the degree of "broken" state that the file system is in. I've had xfs_checks run for days and eat up 96GB of memory because of various degrees of "broken"-ness. These are on 35 and 45TB file systems. Be prepared to throw memory at the problem or lots of swap files if you get really buggered up.
--
James A. Peltier
IT Services - Research Computing Group
Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus
Phone : 778-782-6573
Fax : 778-782-3045
E-Mail : jpeltier@xxxxxx
Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices
http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
