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@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...