On Thursday, April 14, 2011 07:26 AM, John Jasen wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 08:19 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:36 PM, John Jasen wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2011 10:21 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Alain Péan
>>>> <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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What were those circumstances? Crash? Power outage? What are the
>> components of the RAID systems?
>
> One was a hardware raid over fibre channel, which silently corrupted
> itself. System checked out fine, raid array checked out fine, xfs was
> replaced with ext3, and the system ran without issue.
>
> Second was multiple hardware arrays over linux md raid0, also over fibre
> channel. This was not so silent corruption, as in xfs would detect it
> and lock the filesystem into read-only before it, pardon the pun, truly
> fscked itself. Happened two or three times, before we gave up, split up
> the raid, and went ext3, Again, no issues.
32-bit kernel by any chance?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
