xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:02:16 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51B45CFD.20500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51B45CFD.20500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey Stan,

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 05:46:21AM -0500, 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.

I gave it a quick read, but since I'm not on linux-raid I don't have a good way
to reply to Steve.  Could you bounce that message over?  I'd be happy to try to
address a point or two...

Thanks,
        Ben

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