On 09/24/2018 08:53 AM, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
Thanks for your anecdote ;-)
Could it be that I stack too many things (XFS in LVM in md-RAID in SSD
's FTL)?
No, we regularly use the same compound of layers, just without the SSD.
mj
___
ceph-users
On 09/24/2018 08:46 AM, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
Too bad, since this FS have a lot of very promising features. I view it
as the single-host-ceph-like FS, and do not see any equivalent (apart
from ZFS which will also never included in the kernel).
Agreed. It's also so much more flexible than
Le dimanche 23 septembre 2018 à 20:28 +0200, mj a écrit :
> XFS has *always* treated us nicely, and we have been using it for a
> VERY
> long time, ever since the pre-2000 suse 5.2 days on pretty much all
> our
> machines.
>
> We have seen only very few corruptions on xfs, and the few times we
Le dimanche 23 septembre 2018 à 17:49 -0700, solarflow99 a écrit :
> ya, sadly it looks like btrfs will never materialize as the next
> filesystem
> of the future. Redhat as an example even dropped it from its future,
> as
> others probably will and have too.
Too bad, since this FS have a lot of
ya, sadly it looks like btrfs will never materialize as the next filesystem
of the future. Redhat as an example even dropped it from its future, as
others probably will and have too.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:28 AM mj wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a very quick and simple reply:
>
> XFS has *always*
Hi,
Just a very quick and simple reply:
XFS has *always* treated us nicely, and we have been using it for a VERY
long time, ever since the pre-2000 suse 5.2 days on pretty much all our
machines.
We have seen only very few corruptions on xfs, and the few times we
tried btrfs, (almost)
Hi all,
I don't have a good track record with XFS since I got rid of ReiserFS a
long time ago. I decided XFS was a good idea on servers, while I tested
BTRFS on various less important devices.
So far, XFS betrayed me far more often (a few times) than BTRFS
(never).
Last time was yesterday, on a
