On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Knuth Posern wrote:
> I would like to build a Software RAID-5. I don't have a
> backup of my data (because it is too much data and backup-solutions are
> too expansive for a student). That's why I want to use a Software-RAID-5
> with redundancy.
> But what FS to use?
> Thats the point where XFS comes to play. Ext2 would be too slow with
> fsck.ext2! - That's why it has to be a Journaling Filesystem.
> I know you said: You don't recommend to use XFS in
> But would you recommend me to NOT use XFS for my RAID-5, because with a
> little bug all my data could be lost?!?!?! - Or are there versions which
> are stable enough. If XFS is not PERFECT at the moment and needs debugging
> would be o.k. for me and I would try to help you improving it. But it must
> be at least a bit SAVE against (complete) DATA-LOSS...
I use XFS on my home system since the 2.4.0-test kernels came out and have
not suffered data as of yet. (knock on wood). I have no expierence about
XFS over Raid5. I have the number of disks for it but unfortunately not
the time to test it. I have to get rid of one system before I can put my
backup machine to action.
There are already a fair number of people out there using it. I at work
even have it working in my production environment with good succes.
YMMV when using it. If something goes wring with a XFS system you will
notic fairly soon. It will either not mount or crash. The utilities on the
FS are relatively mature so they can save you in some cases.
The only problems with md is running in degraded mode. But it does work.
> I tried to build a 2.4.3-XFS kernel (but failed with the gcc - see
> below). How UNsafe is 2.4.3-XFS against 2.4.2-XFS? And when will there be
> an update which supports 2.4.4 or 2.4.5?
It is on the FTP site. ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/patches/
The cvs tree is currently at 2.4.6-pre3.
> O.k. you wrote in your FAQ: about gcc 2.95: Hmmm there may be
> problems ... but under Debian... and... ?!?!
Most people reported succes with 2.95.3+ and there have been some fixes
for the tree for compiling with newer kernels.
> So what? - Is it possible to use the gcc 3.0 or gcc 2.96 or do I have to
> use the old 2.91.66 at the moment? And is there a x in 2.95.x which is
> safe to use with the XFS-kernel?
3.0 is untested, if someone did try to compile it let me know. It is
also largely untested for the rest of the kernel. It's almost released but
not just yet.
> And how long will it take till it is save to use the newer 2.95.x or 2.96
2.96 needs to be tested fr some cases. I'd rather skip the work on 2.96
and start on 3 when it will be released.
> I tried to get the 2.91.66 C and C++ compiler installed on my system. But
> it failed. And I don't know exactly why...
Try compiling the tree first with your native compiler and see what
happens. Debian should work ok. And if you are on debian there are
probably debs out there that you can fetch the pre made compiler.