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?