thus Chan Chung Hang Christopher spake:
> Timo Schoeler wrote:
>> thus Christopher Chan spake:
>>
>>> Ian Forde wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>>>>>> RHEL
>>>>>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>>>>>> loss
>>>>>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>>>>>> have you
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
>>>>> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
>>>>> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
>>>>> Ext4
>>>>> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
>>>>> bias on
>>>>> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>> Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
>>>> it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
>>>> said experience unjustified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The thing is that none of you ever stated how XFS was used. With
>>> hardware raid or software raid or lvm or memory disk...
>>>
>> Speaking for me (on Linux systems) on top of LVM on top of md. On IRIX
>> as it was intended.
>>
>>
>
> That is a disaster combination for XFS even now.
(Not company critical stuff -- just my 2nd workstation, the one to mess
around with; however, I didn't have problems yet -- what, of course,
should nobody invite do test it [on critical data]...!)
> You mentioned some
> pretty hefty hardware in your other post...
Which do you mean?
Timo
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
