On Apr 17, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Charles Polisher <cpolish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:55:08PM -0400, Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Brandon Ooi <brandono@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Ross Walker <rswwalker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Every now and then I hear these XFS horror stories. They seem too
>>> impossible to believe.
>>>
>>> Nothing breaks for absolutely no reason and failure to know where
>>> the breakage was shows that maybe there wasn't adequately skilled
>>> techinicians for the technology deployed.
>>>
>>> XFS if run in a properly configured environment will run flawlessly.
>
> Here's some deconstruction of your argument:
>
> "... and failure to know where the breakage was shows that maybe there
> wasn't adequately skilled techinicians for the technology deployed"
>
> This is blaming the victim. One must have the time, skills and
> often other resources to do root cause analysis.
>
> "XFS if run in a properly configured environment will run flawlessly."
>
> I think a more narrowly qualified opinion is appropriate: "XFS,
> properly configured, running on perfect hardware atop a perfect
> kernel, will have fewer serious bugs than it had on Jan 1, 2009."
> Here's a summary of XFS bugzilla data from 2009 through today:
I already apologized for those comments last week. No need to keep flogging a dead horse here.
> Bug Status
> Severity
> NEW ASSIGNED REOPENED Total
> blocker 3 . . 3
> critical 10 2 . 12
> major 48 2 . 50
> normal 118 46 3 167
> minor 26 3 . 29
> trivial 7 . . 7
> enhancement 39 9 1 49
> Total 251 62 4 317
>
> See also the XFS mailing list for a big dose of reality. Flawlessly
> is not the label I would use for XFS. /Maybe/ for Ext2.
Basically it comes down to that all file systems, as do all software, have bugs and edge cases and thinking that one can find a file system that is bug free is naive.
Test, test, test.
-Ross
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
