xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:13:04 -0400
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51B45CFD.20500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51B45CFD.20500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6
On 06/09/2013 06:46 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
In a recent linux-raid list thread here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=137072140106867&w=2

seriously flawed arguments against the reliability of XFS, and even the
performance of XFS, are made.  The OP even quotes Dave's LCA
presentation as a performance reason to avoid XFS.  The party really
gets started at paragraph 7.

I made a brief effort to debunk his claims and explained that he can't
have O_PONIES, that he should use fsync or O_DIRECT, etc for data
safety.  To non experts/advanced filesystem users, his long winded
argument may be persuasive.  Obviously none of you experts has time to
debunk every such post, but this one may be worth a read at least,
especially given the weight Google gives to vger lists.

Thanks for pointing that out - I responded as well.

Funny that he decided to use ext4 after basing it on a google search for "xfs zero" and did not bother to the same query with "ext4 zero length files" :)

Ric

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