On Apr 17, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Charles Polisher <cpolish at surewest.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:55:08PM -0400, Ross Walker wrote: >> On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Brandon Ooi <brandono at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Ross Walker <rswwalker at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Every now and then I hear these XFS horror stories. They seem too >>> impossible to believe. >>> >>> Nothing breaks for absolutely no reason and failure to know where >>> the breakage was shows that maybe there wasn't adequately skilled >>> techinicians for the technology deployed. >>> >>> XFS if run in a properly configured environment will run flawlessly. > > Here's some deconstruction of your argument: > > "... and failure to know where the breakage was shows that maybe there > wasn't adequately skilled techinicians for the technology deployed" > > This is blaming the victim. One must have the time, skills and > often other resources to do root cause analysis. > > "XFS if run in a properly configured environment will run flawlessly." > > I think a more narrowly qualified opinion is appropriate: "XFS, > properly configured, running on perfect hardware atop a perfect > kernel, will have fewer serious bugs than it had on Jan 1, 2009." > Here's a summary of XFS bugzilla data from 2009 through today: I already apologized for those comments last week. No need to keep flogging a dead horse here. > Bug Status > Severity > NEW ASSIGNED REOPENED Total > blocker 3 . . 3 > critical 10 2 . 12 > major 48 2 . 50 > normal 118 46 3 167 > minor 26 3 . 29 > trivial 7 . . 7 > enhancement 39 9 1 49 > Total 251 62 4 317 > > See also the XFS mailing list for a big dose of reality. Flawlessly > is not the label I would use for XFS. /Maybe/ for Ext2. Basically it comes down to that all file systems, as do all software, have bugs and edge cases and thinking that one can find a file system that is bug free is naive. Test, test, test. -Ross