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 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. (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]...!) > You mentioned some > pretty hefty hardware in your other post... Which do you mean? Timo