On 6/10/13 4:43 AM, Stefan Ring wrote: > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In a recent linux-raid list thread here: >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=137072140106867&w=2 >> >> seriously flawed arguments against the reliability of XFS, and even the >> performance of XFS, are made. The OP even quotes Dave's LCA >> presentation as a performance reason to avoid XFS. The party really >> gets started at paragraph 7. >> >> I made a brief effort to debunk his claims and explained that he can't >> have O_PONIES, that he should use fsync or O_DIRECT, etc for data >> safety. To non experts/advanced filesystem users, his long winded >> argument may be persuasive. Obviously none of you experts has time to >> debunk every such post, but this one may be worth a read at least, >> especially given the weight Google gives to vger lists. > > The really unfortunate thing about this is that the bug[1] which would > prevent transaction flushing from happening got imported and shipped > for a rather long time in RHEL. It's one thing to get a file zeroed > that's a few seconds old, but having the same happen to files which > haven't been touched in hours, even before issuing manual sync, is > certainly not very reassuring. Bugs and regressions are always unfortunate, and this one was no exception. It was pretty obscure, but we (mostly Dave) worked with our customers to identify & resolve it within days of the bug report. As far as I know, the bug existed only for a crash, not a reboot. > As a very satisfied user of XFS on CentOS 6, I have been nervous > enough about that to go through the trouble of rebooting our main > server for a kernel upgrade a few weeks ago. Thanks to RedHat's > deceptive tactics regarding kernel patches, I have also not been able deceptive - adj. - Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading. which sounds pretty damning. Perhaps more accurate is: obfuscated - adj. - Rendered obscure, unclear, or unintelligible ;) > to pin-point the exact range of kernel versions affected by this in a > reasonable amount of time and hence have not found out (thankfully not > the hard way) if it was even necessary. It was introduced in 6.2 and resolved in 6.4, as well as 6.2 and 6.3 z-stream kernels. Those are the sorts of things Red Hat support can help customers identify more quickly & clearly. -Eric > [1] https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/6.4_Technical_Notes/kernel.html > "BZ#855139" > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
