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.
"whenever it goes down" without a clean umount? I assume this was a power failure?
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.
Why would a "main distribution server" not have UPS? Even a simple cheap-o $50-100 UPS can buy enough time for a shutdown that is clean.
-- Bryan Whitehead Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WorkE:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
