On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 15:43 -0500, Adam Skutt wrote: > Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > > Unfortunately XFS also repeatedly swallowed a number of my volumes. I > > found it to be more unstable than any filesystem I have used (save > > VxFS). When using XFS, one must not read from the underlying device, or > > one risks corruption. > In Linux, doing this on *any* filesystem will potentially cause corruption. > > This is why e2dump/e2restore are *unsafe* and not to be used. > > Raw I/O operations bypass the buffer cache, so of course it'd be corrupted.
The latter part of this sentence is not supported by the former, > If you're dicking with device access while a partition is mounted and > you lose data, you deserve what you get. This behavior has been a no-no > forever. Reading from the device never causes corruption of any other filesystem. You can dump an ext3 filesystem all day long. You'll get a corrupt dump, but you won't get a corrupt volume. > This leads one to believe that using XFS on LVM, > > md, or enbd would be somewhat risky. > I dunno what 'enbd' enbd is the enhanced network block device. > is, but XFS on LVM or md is perfectly safe. No, actually, it isn't. Look at the XFS mailing list. There's a number of reports of boinked volumes just in the last month. > They're > kernel drivers for starters, so they can coordinate block I/O > operations. They also sit below XFS in the I/O layer, XFS just sees > them as another partition. This does not explain why XFS is frequently reported to become corrupted when exported over NFS. > I dunno how you came across this conclusion at all. I came across this conclusion by losing numerous large filesystems in the course of only 6 month before abandoning XFS. -jwb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
