One was 32 bit, the other 64 bit.
Christopher Chan <christopher.chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
