xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: file corruption

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: file corruption
From: Dmitry Nikiforov <dniq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:40:36 -0600
Cc: Christian Rice <xian@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dmitry Nikiforov <dniq_kraft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040402044712.GB27240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <406AF7B6.6030405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040402001801.GA24900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <406CB95B.4040500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040402011618.GA25511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <406CC518.1090204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040402015022.GA25936@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <406CCF08.9020309@xxxxxxxxxxx> <406CD88F.3070900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040402044712.GB27240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Chris Wedgwood wrote:

>>Then there's no point in using XFS at all, is there? :)
>>    
>>
>
>This has nothing to do with XFS.  All filesystems journalling and
>otherwise are affected by this.
>  
>
  Agree, but different filesystems are affected to a different degree. 
So far I've not had any data lost with, say, ext3, however its 
performance is pretty poor. For now, I've reformatted all partitions on 
my workstation with ReiserFS and will see what's going to happen if the 
system crashes :)
  It appears that XFS does not guarantee the data consistency, and even 
worse than that: it will never tell you that some files are broken. I'd 
rather have a longer fsck which tells me which files are broken, even if 
it can't fix them.

  Thanks for clarification, though! :) At least now I know _why_ XFS 
shouldn't be used on a production server :)

--
Regards, DNiq.


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