Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f5SNkT620500 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:46:29 -0700 Received: from mail.dkp.com ([204.191.16.3]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f5SNkSV20495 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:46:29 -0700 Received: from ranma.dkp.com (ranma.dkp.com [205.150.40.12]) by mail.dkp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294741AB0F for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ranma.dkp.com (Postfix, from userid 168) id 8503E122B; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:46:27 -0400 From: Andrew Klaassen To: linux-xfs Subject: Re: XFS corruption on SoftRAID5 Message-ID: <20010628194627.A8778@dkp.com> Mail-Followup-To: linux-xfs References: <3B3B6A45.3252B37C@ch.sauter-bc.com> <3B3BC18C.FF7C9E2E@ieee.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B3BC18C.FF7C9E2E@ieee.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 07:45:16PM -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > I thought the whole 2.4 kernel and software RAID-5 was not > recommended, no matter what fs you use? Hmm. I hope not - we've just deployed 300G of IDE drive (using an onboard controller, no less) on a box running 2.4.2-SGI_XFS_1.0.1_PR1 over software RAID 5, and plan to deploy 300G more once we've had a chance to tweak and tune and further stress test the second box. Other than the highmem bug - which showed up in testing on the second box, and hasn't yet affected the first - we haven't experienced any difficulties. Should we expect some? Are there some kernel mailing list threads I might want to take a look at before I dig myself in too deep? Andrew Klaassen