Alternative file systems? Was Re: Better File systems?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 21:04, Dan Hollis wrote:

> xfs is still battling corruption problems, and there is still the "nulls 
> in files" problem. while xfs core code may be mature the linux port is 
> not. i wouldn't suggest it for any production systems at the moment.
> (i had big problems with xfs on several production machines)

Dan, you reported a problem back in January with your xfs filesystem, 
haven't heard from you since.  If you are still having problems, please 
let us know, we have not had similar reports from anyone since then.  As
far as I know, there are no outstanding "corruption" issues with xfs.

re: the "nulls in files" problem, it's a fact of life that on a metadata
journaling filesytem, if you lose power, you lose data.  In the case of
xfs, synchronous transactions used to mean that you sometimes wound up
with files with a length, but no data if you crashed before a sync. 
Most of these transactions have now been made asynchronous, and you're
much more likely to just get your "old" data back after a crash, since
metadata is not forced out before file data.

FWIW, There are many people who _would_ recommend XFS for production
machines, including those listed at
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/xfs_users.html

Just had to step in to defend our filesystem a bit.  :)  If you're still
having problems, please do let us know so we can address them.

-Eric

-- 
Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@sgi.com   SGI, Inc.





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Red Hat General]     [Fedora]     [Red Hat Install]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux