Florin Andrei 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.
Everyone on this list is somewhat accustomed to ignoring reports of bugs
that are known to be fixed in current versions. Is there some reason to
think that the current XFS on 64-bit Linux is more fragile or less well
tested than ext4?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com