[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable xfs

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stable xfs
From: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:15:53 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060719095400.A1936041@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060719095400.A1936041@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Reply-to: mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
thanks a lot for this detail explanation!

i will check both 2.6.17 -stable release and sles kernel. unfortunately,
i only play with RHEL so far.


On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 09:54 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:30:23AM -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:
> > Hi All
> > 
> > We want to use XFS in all of our production servers but feel a little
> > scary about the corruption problems seen in this list. I wonder which
> > 2.6.16+ kernel we can use in order to get a stable XFS? Thanks!
> Use the latest 2.6.17 -stable release, or a vendor kernel (SLES is
> particularly good with XFS, as SGI works closely with SUSE).
> The current batch of corruption reports is due to one unfortunate
> bug that has slipped through our QA testing net, which happily is
> a fairly rare occurence (it was a very subtle bug).
> XFS also tends to get a bad rap (IMO) from the way it reports on-disk
> corruption and I/O errors in critical data structures, which is quite
> different to many other filesystems - it dumps a stack trace into the
> system log (alot of people mistake that for a panic) and "shuts down"
> the filesystem, with subsequent accesses returning errors until the
> problem is resolved.
> > ps, one friend mentioned that XFS has some issue with LVM+MD under it.
> > Is this true?
> No.
> cheers.

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