Timo Schoeler wrote: > 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]...!) > > Oh, nevermind. >> You mentioned some >> pretty hefty hardware in your other post... >> > > Which do you mean? > EMC2 storage...