[CentOS] Is ext4 safe for a production server?

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

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 at andrei.myip.org>  
>>>>> 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...