| To: | Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Intel X25-E running Linux using XFS |
| From: | Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:43:53 +0100 |
| Cc: | Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>, smartmontools-support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, smartmontools-database-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alan Piszcz <ap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812121516190.17857@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811271257470.2233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081212185803.GE11974@xxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812121516190.17857@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081116 SeaMonkey/1.1.13 |
Justin Piszcz wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: >> Actually I'd like to know... how does it behave during powerfails >> while it is being written to? >> >> Flashes I seen (USB / SD) developed bad sectors in that case, and >> ext2/ext3 can't handle that. (And I don't think xfs can handle that >> either). > > I have a UPS for all of my machines, so that will not be a problem in my > case. UPSs fail too. ... > With barriers, presumably it would be safe There are other opinions: http://lwn.net/Articles/309576/ (Magnetic disks are discussed there.) -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- ==-- -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] fix corruption case for block size < page size, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs], Justin Piszcz |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Intel X25-E running Linux using XFS, Justin Piszcz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Intel X25-E running Linux using XFS, Volker Kuhlmann |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |