At 11:36 29-1-2002 -0800, Gabe E. Nydick wrote:
Hey folks,
I've been using xfs since 1.0 was released and many of my machines have
2.4.5 on them and I get weirdnesses. So as new patches come out, I've been
upgrading to a new kernel version. The latest one I'm using is a 2.4.16
w/XFS+EXT3. I've started migrating away from xfs because of problems like,
under heavy load, my entire file system got corrupt, missing files on
non-busy machines, etc. Given the advantages XFS has over EXT3,
And you made comment of this on the list? Including the specs. Most
problems I hit with different 2.4 kernels were problems with 2.4 itself.
At work we have a database box with 10GB+ Progres 9 databases on it which
has been running just fine. I have also experienced one corrupted fs on a
squid cache which caused recovery to cease after a crash. That was fixed
with xfs_repair and I have seen problems with squid caches before.
The production boxes are all running the 1.0.2 release kernel. Those
kernels are originally Red Hat kernels which include fixes for a lot of
known bugs which have not been fixed in -linus and also include a whole
bunch of drivers for otherwise unsupported but neccesary hardware. They
have also been heavily regression tested.
performance, and file size, I would like to know first of all, what kernel
version w/which patch w/which compiler makes a stable 2.4.x xfs kernel that
won't trash my filesystem. Second, I would like to know, in what way I can
beat up my machine to test for these sort of failures that plagued previous
versions of xfs?
Most stuff I just think up myself. I look around what programs I have and
just run a lot of them simultaneously.
The amount of damage I have personally seen on a XFS fs was caused by
something between the keyboard and chair. (eg. me)
Cheers
--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.
|