[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable xfs

To: Linux XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stable xfs
From: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:24:17 +0100
In-reply-to: <1153272044.2669.282.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17595.47312.720883.451573@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153262166.2669.267.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17597.27469.834961.186850@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153272044.2669.282.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:44 -0400, Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[ ... ]

mingz> when u say large parallel storage system, you mean
mingz> independent spindles right? but most people will have all
mingz> disks configured in one RAID5/6 and thus it is not
mingz> parallel any more.

As I was saying...

  pg> Most of the reports about ''corruption'' are consequences
  pg> of not being aware of what it was designed for, how it
  pg> works and how it should be used...

  mingz> [ .. ] example on what is an improper use?
  pg> Well, this mailing list is full of them :-).

  pg> But then I have seen people building RAIDs stuffing in a
  pg> couple dozen drives from the same shipping box, [ ... ]


BTW as to these:

  * A 64 bit system.
  * With a large, parallel storage system.
  * The block IO system handles all storage errors.
  * With backups of the contents of the storage system.

I forgot a very essential one:

  * With lots of RAM, size proportional to that of the largest filesystem.

[ ... ]

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