xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFs stability

To: mahesh.babbar@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFs stability
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Jul 2003 08:21:12 -0500
Cc: logiplex@xxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <H00000bb003b5192.1058878722.dlx101.dlh.st.com@MHS>
References: <H00000bb003b5192.1058878722.dlx101.dlh.st.com@MHS>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 08:04, mahesh.babbar@xxxxxx wrote:
>      Thanks for the response Mike & Cliff,
>      
>      On our server though, which is basically a file server, serving 
>      clients files over NFS. We have had 4-5 instances of xfs_shutdown 
>      with message like "in-core memory corruption...." . 
>      
>      The exact messages are: 
>      
>      kerrnel: xfs_force_shutdown(lvm(58,2),0x8) called from line 1035 of 
>      file xfs_trans.c.  Return address = 0xc01cc10a
>      kernel: Corruption of in-memory data detected.  Shutting down 
>      filesystem: lvm(58,2)
>      kernel: Please umount the filesystem, and rectify the problem(s)
>      
>      At once, we had lost data even after repairing the filesystem using 
>      xfs_repair and that too production data. Clearly, we are a worried lot 
>      !
>      
>      Would appreciate if I can get some information on concrete advantages 
>      which XFS has over ext3/2 in terms of stability (specially as a file 
>      server, performnace (with figures e.g how much % write/read gain) and 
>      features. 
>      
>      I believe we are using the XFS version which is as old as July 2001.

It is really difficult to have sympathy for you if you are running 2
year old code. There have been a vast number of improvements in the
code since then.

As for advantages/disadvantages, I will leave that to other folks.

Steve



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