Timo Schoeler wrote:
> 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]...!)
>
>
Oh, nevermind.
>> You mentioned some
>> pretty hefty hardware in your other post...
>>
>
> Which do you mean?
>
EMC2 storage...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
