On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:37, Stephen Lord wrote:
> >Any suggestions as to how the damage was done in the first place -
> >what the bug is?
> Not as yet, but there have now been two cases of filesystems ending up
> confusing repair like this.
> >There have been worrying reports of data corruption over the last few
> >weeks, and I am sure the developers are trying to track them down.
In my time running Linux/Win? I have had corruption or major issues with most
of the filesystems at some time or other. I still trust XFS as I know where
it falls down for me. Of course YMMV.
> >own system hasn't been used much recently as I have been away on
> >holiday, but I booted it this morning and everything seemed fine
> >(running Linux 2.4.17-xfs as downloaded from CVS at the end of last
> I would say it is partially as xfs gets more exposure it gets tried on more
> combinations of hardware and software (compilers).
This is very true and something that I'm very happy about. The more people
that run XFS the better chance of catching every little issue; which results
in a great stable filesystem very suitable for fileservers. Just look at
where all the operation time has put ext2.
I am not aware of
> any 'data corruption' issues remaining (emacs builds should be fixed,
> and the fsx-linux program runs fine for me for 24 hours - I believe it
> was been run in a patched kernel).
> The directory corruption issues do concern me, and I have to admit to being
> baffled right now, but the vast majority of users do not see any problems
> at all.
Under my normal operational use of XFS, workstations & a 20client fileserver
XFS is as stable as they come. I have not had any issues with these setups
at all. All issues that I have encounted have occured when I have
been stress testing the system way past where it would normally run in an
attempt to find the limitations.
(Public Key available on request.)