xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: last xfs_repair time?

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: last xfs_repair time?
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:48:00 +0100
In-reply-to: <20081113015503.GN18990@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <20081112224109.GC18990@xxxxxxxxx> <491B83E5.4030002@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20081113015503.GN18990@xxxxxxxxx> (sfid-20081113_094602_308627_96E6041F)
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9
Hi!

Lets see whether MailMan lets GPG signature unmangled or whether it is 
something else that mangles it.

Am Donnerstag 13 November 2008 schrieb Lars Damerow:
> From Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 
07:33:25PM -0600:
> > So, for what it's worth, power loss should not necessarily require a
> > repair; as long as you have barriers enabled and/or you're not losing
> > log writes to a volatile write cache, power loss should never corrupt
> > the filesystem metadata; that is what the log is for, after all...
>
> Our disks are partitioned with LVM, so we don't have write barriers. We
> just recently disabled write caching, though, so our future should be
> brighter than it's been. :)

I really hope that LVM gets write barrier support for write barrier 
capable targets. Unless it does my notebook will use plain partitions for 
anything but testing filesystems. Otherwise with 2.6.16 back then I 
hardly felt a difference in XFS speed after turning off write caches.

If you like add your vote here:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9554

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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