xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RAID needs more to survive a power hit, different /boot layout for e

To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RAID needs more to survive a power hit, different /boot layout for example (was Re: draft howto on making raids for surviving a disk crash)
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:09:53 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Moshe Yudkowsky <moshe@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47A7188A.4070005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <47A612BE.5050707@xxxxxxxxx> <47A623EE.4050305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47A62A17.70101@xxxxxxxxx> <47A6DA81.3030008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47A6EFCF.9080906@xxxxxxxxx> <47A7188A.4070005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20)


On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Michael Tokarev wrote:

Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
[]
If I'm reading the man pages, Wikis, READMEs and mailing lists correctly
--  not necessarily the case -- the ext3 file system uses the equivalent
of data=journal as a default.

ext3 defaults to data=ordered, not data=journal.  ext2 doesn't have
journal at all.

The question then becomes what data scheme to use with reiserfs on the

I'd say don't use reiserfs in the first place ;)

Another way to phrase this: unless you're running data-center grade
hardware and have absolute confidence in your UPS, you should use
data=journal for reiserfs and perhaps avoid XFS entirely.

By the way, even if you do have a good UPS, there should be some
control program for it, to properly shut down your system when
UPS loses the AC power.  So far, I've seen no such programs...

/mjt

Why avoid XFS entirely?

esandeen, any comments here?

Justin.


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