begin  quote
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:12:05 -0700
Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It is interesting that this recommendation is only present for XFS
> among the journaled filesystem choices.
> 
> What is the justification for this putdown of XFS?  I communicate with
> other groups, and almost universally people sing the praises of XFS
> (including use for critical servers).  Is this just an old wives tale
> from the early days of XFS?   Did someone put this in and it was never
> reviewed?  Almost anyone I talk to maintains that XFS recovers from
> power failures just as well as any other journaling fs. 



No, The problem is in how XFS caches content and restores metadata but
fills content with null (^@ ) whenever it goes down. 

We had XFS on our main distribution server and it fucked us over deeply
and badly due to this, by chewing in most of the data at a point. This
was bad enough to warrant the change. Before that XFS was recommended
above others for its performance.



//Spider
   wizend old and with bad memory.

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to