On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 10:28, mahesh.babbar@xxxxxx wrote:
> Freinds,
>
> Please recall that a week before I put up a similar problem and I was
> told that the problem could be beause of the ancient code of XFS (2
> years old) I am running on my box.
>
> Answer was that new XFS code is stable, proven and works without any
> issues and there no *VERY CRITICAL* issues like data corruption.
>
> Aman's problem's source may have been different to mine but the
> bottomlime is that "There could still be a major stability issue even
> with newer XFS codes".
>
> Steve/Lonnie : I don't want to sound un-neccessarily finiky and I
> completely trust communitiy's ability to set things right, my only
> submission is that there could still be grey areas
Please remember that you are getting all of this for free - including
those of you who are selling products with linux XFS in them. We do not
have the bandwidth to go back and backport bug fixes to older kernels.
So, our first plan of attack is to ask folks to reproduce on a recent
kernel - i.e. install the bug fixes. If you are running some combination
of software which means you cannot do this, then we really cannot help.
Aman's code is still a few months old, and I have fixed a number of
issues in the xfs sync path since then. He is also doing some fairly
funky things.
You asked a question on the list about stability, you did not report
corruption, you said:
Hi ,
I am totally new to XFs world so please bear with me for my
ignorance.
My query is how stable xfs is ? Or let's say which version of it is
most stable.
Any hint is welcome.
TIA
Mahesh
Steve
--
Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|