XFS filesystem revisited

[Brett I. Holcomb]

Yes, and as someone pointed out in response to that- that was 1) probably 
during a power failure so what is a server that is that important doing 
without even a simple cheap UPS to allow a clean shutdown and b) what 
version was that.   Probably old version and they don't like XFS so it's a 
good excuse to bad mouth it.  Based on all the good responses about XFS I 
think Gentoo is out of the loop.


Collins Richey wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:12:55 -0500 "David A. Bandel" <david at pananix.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:07:28 -0500
>> "Brett I. Holcomb" <brettholcomb at charter.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think that the Gentoo people really don't have much experience with
> 
> Net summary is that almost everyone (except for one or two gentoo
> developers
> and the OpenMosix folks (I, too, am clueless about OM) loves XFS.  When
> pressed into a corner, the gentoo developer (who is in the once burned,
> thrice shy category) allowed the following.
> 
> "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."
> 
> "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."
> 
> Enjoy.
> 

-- 
Brett I. Holcomb
brettholcomb at R777charter.net
AKA Grunt <><
Registered Linux User #188143
Remove R777 to email