The solution to Dave's problem seems obvious to me. If you care about your
data and your hardware, buy a UPS with power conditioning, configure Linux to
show down when the battery gets low and enjoy the peace of mind knowing that
even if your away from your machine and the power goes off, the system will
take care of itself.
On Monday 08 January 2007 08:49, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 05:13 -0800, Dave N wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Can someone enlighten me what the issue is with XFS? I've been hearing a
> > lot of good things on the Net about XFS. How it's lightening fast, how it
> > has features other file systems do not have (like GRIO, real time
> > volumes, allocate on flush, etc), how it scales very well, etc... but
> > what I didn't hear about is how fast XFS screws things up if something
> > wrong happens. Because of the good things I heard about XFS, I too
> > decided to try it out (been using Ext3 or ReiserFS here for most of the
> > time). Now I'm very disappointed in XFS. I live in an area where power
> > outages are common and I do not have an UPS here. I have a few computers
> > all running on XFS and thought that XFS will give me similar
> > data-integrity like Ext3 or ReiserFS. Now, for the past few weeks I've
> > been experiencing "strange behavior" from XFS. One time, I was reading an
> > article on the Net and had only my Firefox browser open. Then we had a
> > power outage for a short period of time, and when I logged in again into
> > KDE, I was surprised to find out that all my desktop icons were messed up
> > all over the place. The other time, again power outage, only this time I
> > was working on a small text file. Booted up again only to find out that
> > the file I was working on contained garbage and I had to start all over
> > again.
> > I also heard that XFS depends heavily on the application side for its
> > data-integrity. XFS "thinks" that the application will use the proper
> > calls when writing to disk. What???? How is it the task of the
> > application to ensure the safety of your files??? IMO, programs are there
> > to provide the tools to be productive, NOT to ensure the data safety of
> > your files, that's the task of the file system. Even MySQL provides me
> > with better data-integrity here. If I'm doing some database transaction
> > and the power fails, I can be pretty sure that *most* of the time, MySQL
> > will be just fine next time I boot up.
> > Why oh why such a beautiful file system like XFS is so terrible at
> > data-integrity? Look what Sun Microsystems did with their new ZFS file
> > system... full atomicity, CRC checksumming and other features to ensure
> > data-integrity... why can't XFS have such things?
> > Thanks for listening to my preaching here guys
> > Cheers!
> It is nothing wrong with XFS - your expectations are wrong.
> You expect data to be journaled, but XFS does journal metadata only, not
> data. So, the thing that you get is filesystem integrity not data
> If you want data integrity you need properly written applications and
> __it is__ application's job to care about it's data. It is nothing
> unusual here.
> If you need data journaling then you need another filesystem - eg. ext3.
> I suppose that you find all of it in FAQ.
A Cringester who requested anonymity says when a friend ran
Microsoft BS (Baseline Security) Analyzer on a XP Pro SP2 machine,
the cumulative size of the patches that were required exceeded
the size of the original OS. I'm not surprised. The volume
of Microsoft BS I've analyzed could fill Bill Gates' house.
Source: Robert X. Cringely, InfoWorld, Sept. 4, 2006, Issue 36
Penguin: Linux version 2.6.16, 8010.09 BogoMips
Description: PGP signature