On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:57:03 +0100 Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin quote > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:10:19 -0800 > "Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > that was well over a year ago wasn't it? what about todays XFS > > implementations in 2.4.22+patches or 2.6.0-test? >
> The means of achieving their throughput increase is to whack around with > the buffecache and the sync code, making it not flush data to disk every > 5 seconds or N blocks (as the current, all other FS do) which -does- in > fact add afurther risk to the files in question. > Reply from a contented and long-term XFS user on another list: "My opinion of gentoo has hit an all time low. That bug was stomped out well over a year ago. And in reality, it never was a bug, it was a configurable parameter. So gentoo apparently doesn't read documentation, and then poisons their userbase with their ignornace. lovely." Removing the invective still leaves us at the original question: was this documentation reviewed for accuracy, and perhaps reviewed to determine whether it remains accurate after lengthy passage of time? I can find a lot more examples of "reiserfs trashed my files" even in gentoo postings over the years than XFS, but only XFS is singled out for a warning in the documentation. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
