One was 32 bit, the other 64 bit.
Christopher Chan christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 07:26 AM, John Jasen wrote:
On 04/12/2011 08:19 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:36 PM, John Jasen wrote:
On 04/12/2011 10:21 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Alain Péan <alain.pean@lpp.polytechnique.fr mailto:alain.pean@lpp.polytechnique.fr> wrote:
<snipped: two recommendations for XFS>
I would chime in with a dis-commendation for XFS. At my previous employer, two cases involving XFS resulted in irrecoverable data corruption. These were on RAID systems running from 4 to 20 TB.
What were those circumstances? Crash? Power outage? What are the components of the RAID systems?
One was a hardware raid over fibre channel, which silently corrupted itself. System checked out fine, raid array checked out fine, xfs was replaced with ext3, and the system ran without issue.
Second was multiple hardware arrays over linux md raid0, also over fibre channel. This was not so silent corruption, as in xfs would detect it and lock the filesystem into read-only before it, pardon the pun, truly fscked itself. Happened two or three times, before we gave up, split up the raid, and went ext3, Again, no issues.
32-bit kernel by any chance? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
John Jasen