You seem quick to blame the FS for all your data corruption problems.
As stated in your original email your XFS FS is sitting on an LVM
volume. You failed to mention which version which potentially acient
version of LVM you are running (which has had it's share of stability
issues).
You didn't mention which disks/controller/driver version you are using,
all of which have potential to "corrupt data"
If you really have been working with computers for 10 years you should
know the importance of backups as failures do happen and data can be
lost.
Also you might want to look up the work evidence as most your points
below reflect conjecture on your part.
On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 11:02, mahesh.babbar@xxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Lonnie
>
> I am sorry If I was being offending, but want to present following
> facts here. Please challenge me :
>
> Evidence is
>
> 1. I have lost a big chunk of data. In the range of GBs. It was
> commercially important data.
>
> 2. In my 10 years of carreer, I have never seen a Sun(UFS) or an
> HPUX(JFS) or an AIX box(JFS) corrupting data like what I have seen or
> what Aman has faced.
>
> 2. You will say "LATEST" code resolves most of the issues. Accepted.
> But is there a version, X or Y or Z (old or latest, a user doesn't
> care) which is STABLE.
>
> What I mean by stability is, a technical person (which you all are)
> can say " I am confident that IT WORKS".
>
> 3. In an envrionment which involves *real* customers and where each
> second counts and data means hard dollors, no body bothers about CODES
> and their versions. So please don't distribute something (even free)
> in the name of
>
> * it's latest
> * It's gives better performance
> * It's this , it's that
>
> BUT
>
> when it comes to stability, It all depends. Which as per me is the
> most important factor.
>
> It may work on our personal laptops/labs/academies but not in
> commercial sector.
>
> Mahesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: RE: Data Corruption Problem
> Author: netllama (netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) at internet
> Date: 7/30/2003 9:00 PM
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 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
>
> And the moon might be blue on alternate sundays in June. Please don't
> spread FUD. If you have evidence of a problem, then present it, against
> the latest released stable XFS codebase. If not, then don't raise doubt
> over something that you have a hunch on without any real evidence.
>
|