Martin Steigerwald put forth on 12/4/2010 4:30 AM: > Am Freitag 12 November 2010 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: >> Michael Monnerie put forth on 11/12/2010 7:22 AM: >>> I find the robustness of XFS amazing: You overwrote 1/5th of the disk >>> with zeroes, and it still works :-) >> >> This isn't "robustness" Michael. If anything it's a serious problem. >> XFS is reporting that hundreds or thousands of files that have been >> physically removed still exist. Regardless of how he arrived at this >> position, how is this "robust"? Most people would consider this >> inconsistency of state a "corruption" situation, not "robustness". > > I think its necessary to differentiate here: > > 1) It appears to be robustness - or pure luck - regarding metadata > consistency of the filesystem. I tend to believe its pure luck and that XFS > just stored the metadata on the other RAID arrays. > > 2) XFS does not seem to have a way to detect whether file contents are > still valid and consistent. It shares that with I think every other Linux > filesystem instead BTRFS which uses checksumming for files. (Maybe NILFS as > well, I don't know, and the FUSE or the other ZFS port). After re-reading my own words above again, I feel I a need to clarify something: I took exception merely to the description of "robustness" being used in this situation. I was not and am not being derogatory of XFS in any way. I love XFS. Of all available filesystems (on any OS) I feel it is the best. That's why I use it. :) In this scenario, other filesystems may have left the OP empty handed. So, I guess XFS deserves deserves a positive attribution for this. But, again, I don't think "robustness" is the correct attribution here. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
