xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS feature request

To: Michael Loftis <mloftis@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS feature request
From: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:32:08 -0500
Cc: XFS List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <86984947.1054766968@[10.1.2.77]>
Organization: Coremetrics, Inc.
References: <86984947.1054766968@[10.1.2.77]>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Given the path of comments here. I'd say that's why the ext2 FS has 3
options for error handling! :)

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 23:49, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Mostly I'd much prefer the option of just going R/O on a filesystem,
> living 
> with the possibility that what I'm *reading* isn't right than a whole 
> system just going black and having to get onself physically present to
> ascertain the problem.
> 
> I don't believe that unmounting the filesystem is *always* the right
> thing 
> to do.  It is in some cases, but there are cases where you'd much
> rather 
> the system just went read-only and refused to flush anything off to
> it.
> 
> --On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:02 PM -0600 Andrew Mathews 
> <andrew_mathews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Michael Loftis wrote:
> >| This has also recently been a problem for us.  The whole 'something
> >| looks a little odd so I'm going to just tank and take the whole
> system
> >| with me' knee-jerk reaction XFS has is very problematic.  It's the
> >| biggest reason I'm moving operations away from it.
> >|
> >| --On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 20:26 +0200 Seth Mos
> <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
> >| wrote:
> >|
> >|> Hello,
> >|>
> >|> Upon a filesystem error the XFS filesystem normally unmounts the
> fs and
> >|> often takes the box along with it.
> >|> ...
> >|
> >| --
> >| Michael Loftis
> >| Modwest Sr. Systems Administrator
> >| Powerful, Affordable Web Hosting
> >|
> >
> > Not to diminish Set's original request, but to address this
> comment...
> >
> > I guess your term "knee-jerk reaction" is subjective. I'd much
> rather
> > have a recoverable system than an unrecoverable one, which is
> exactly
> > what you'll have if the filesystem is put into an unstable state
> > (corruption) and isn't intelligent enough to protect itself from
> further
> > damage. It's also one of the reasons we won't use anything other
> than
> > XFS in a production environment.
> >
> > - --
> > Andrew Mathews
> > -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ~  1:56pm  up 5 days,  4:49, 12 users,  load average: 1.16, 1.13,
> 1.09
> > -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years.
> >               -- Harry S. Truman
> > - --
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQE+3lBHidHQ0m/kEssRAhouAJwJPdLuIKyUzmxSAj2nySsT2zCGfgCeO4lf
> > 33cLIwDjO7/T/iY8LSDp5qQ=
> > =T97e
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> 
> 
-- 
Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Coremetrics, Inc.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>