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. Yes. Used XFS for a mail queue and once lost 4000 emails thanks to XFS's aggressive caching after a power loss before barriers were introduced. However, XFS now supports barriers and so, so long as you do not use lvm or you use hardware raid with a bbu cache and thus not needing to use barriers, you are safe. > > FWIW, I was at SGI when XFS for Linux was released, and I probably was > among its first users. It was great back then, but now it's over-rated. > For sure it is the most complicated filesystem in Linux with the largest block code.