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. You mentioned some pretty hefty hardware in your other post...