[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_repair of critical volume

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs_repair of critical volume
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:14:52 -0600
In-reply-to: <201011121422.28993@xxxxxx>
References: <75C248E3-2C99-426E-AE7D-9EC543726796@xxxxxxxx> <4CCD3CE6.8060407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <864DA9C9-B4A4-4B6B-A901-A457E2B9F5A5@xxxxxxxx> <201011121422.28993@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
Michael Monnerie put forth on 11/12/2010 7:22 AM:

> I find the robustness of XFS amazing: You overwrote 1/5th of the disk 
> with zeroes, and it still works :-)

This isn't "robustness" Michael.  If anything it's a serious problem.
XFS is reporting that hundreds or thousands of files that have been
physically removed still exist.  Regardless of how he arrived at this
position, how is this "robust"?  Most people would consider this
inconsistency of state a "corruption" situation, not "robustness".


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