Florin Andrei wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
> >
> > of course, XFS can also fail spectacularly. ext3fs fully journals all
> > metadata updates. I'm sure this is a major portion of the performance
> > differences on writes.
>
> Actually, I've used XFS since the days it was released as a port to
> Linux (and even before that, on Irix, but that's besides the point). I'm
> aware it's more fragile than Ext3 - in fact, someone here at the office
> made an XFS partition yesterday to do some tests, there was a power
> outage last night, and today that partition is corrupted.
>
> I'll use battery backups (duh) and only put on XFS the stuff that needs
> good performance, but can be rebuilt from the master data in case
> something ugly happens. Like pretty much anything in life,
> it's a trade-off.
Also to make sure to only use kernel drivers that are solid under
both normal and heavy loads, burn in the hardware sufficiently to
make sure there are no lurking failures and make sure your
applications behave properly.
It's not just power that can stop a server suddenly, but to XFS
the result is the same!
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
