One was 32 bit, the other 64 bit. Christopher Chan <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> wrote: >On Thursday, April 14, 2011 07:26 AM, John Jasen wrote: >> On 04/12/2011 08:19 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:36 PM, John Jasen wrote: >>>> On 04/12/2011 10:21 AM, Boris Epstein wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Alain Péan >>>>> <alain.pean at lpp.polytechnique.fr >>>>> <mailto:alain.pean at lpp.polytechnique.fr>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snipped: two recommendations for XFS> >>>> >>>> I would chime in with a dis-commendation for XFS. At my previous >>>> employer, two cases involving XFS resulted in irrecoverable data >>>> corruption. These were on RAID systems running from 4 to 20 TB. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What were those circumstances? Crash? Power outage? What are the >>> components of the RAID systems? >> >> One was a hardware raid over fibre channel, which silently corrupted >> itself. System checked out fine, raid array checked out fine, xfs was >> replaced with ext3, and the system ran without issue. >> >> Second was multiple hardware arrays over linux md raid0, also over fibre >> channel. This was not so silent corruption, as in xfs would detect it >> and lock the filesystem into read-only before it, pardon the pun, truly >> fscked itself. Happened two or three times, before we gave up, split up >> the raid, and went ext3, Again, no issues. > >32-bit kernel by any chance? >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos