xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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: Moshe Yudkowsky <moshe@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:31:08 -0600
Cc: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47A72061.3010800@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: The Institute
References: <47A612BE.5050707@xxxxxxxxx> <47A623EE.4050305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47A62A17.70101@xxxxxxxxx> <47A6DA81.3030008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47A6EFCF.9080906@xxxxxxxxx> <47A7188A.4070005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0802040909010.2415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47A72061.3010800@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20080110)
Eric,

Thanks very much for your note. I'm becoming very leery of resiserfs at the moment... I'm about to run another series of crash tests.

Eric Sandeen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:

Why avoid XFS entirely?

esandeen, any comments here?

Heh; well, it's the meme.

Well, yeah...

Note also that ext3 has the barrier option as well, but it is not
enabled by default due to performance concerns.  Barriers also affect
xfs performance, but enabling them in the non-battery-backed-write-cache
scenario is the right thing to do for filesystem integrity.

So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that current the most reliable fs in its default configuration, in terms of protection against power-loss scenarios, is XFS?


--
Moshe Yudkowsky * moshe@xxxxxxxxx * www.pobox.com/~moshe
 "There is something fundamentally wrong with a country [USSR] where
  the citizens want to buy your underwear."  -- Paul Thereaux


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