Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orca.ele.uri.edu (orca.ele.uri.edu [131.128.51.63]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k6HFUtDW000892 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:30:56 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (c-71-232-42-50.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [71.232.42.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by orca.ele.uri.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6HFUTBk020772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:30:29 -0400 Subject: stable xfs From: Ming Zhang Reply-To: mingz@ele.uri.edu To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:30:23 -0400 Message-Id: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 131.128.51.63 X-archive-position: 8266 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: mingz@ele.uri.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs Content-Length: 307 Lines: 13 Hi All We want to use XFS in all of our production servers but feel a little scary about the corruption problems seen in this list. I wonder which 2.6.16+ kernel we can use in order to get a stable XFS? Thanks! ps, one friend mentioned that XFS has some issue with LVM+MD under it. Is this true? Ming