Re: 2.4.5 vs. 2.4.16

[Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:36 29-1-2002 -0800, Gabe E. Nydick wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
>     I've been using xfs since 1.0 was released and many of my machines have
> 2.4.5 on them and I get weirdnesses.  So as new patches come out, I've been
> upgrading to a new kernel version.  The latest one I'm using is a 2.4.16
> w/XFS+EXT3.  I've started migrating away from xfs because of problems like,
> under heavy load, my entire file system got corrupt, missing files on
> non-busy machines, etc.  Given the advantages XFS has over EXT3,

And you made comment of this on the list? Including the specs. Most 
problems I hit with different 2.4 kernels were problems with 2.4 itself.

At work we have a database box with 10GB+ Progres 9 databases on it which 
has been running just fine. I have also experienced one corrupted fs on a 
squid cache which caused recovery to cease after a crash. That was fixed 
with xfs_repair and I have seen problems with squid caches before.

The production boxes are all running the 1.0.2 release kernel. Those 
kernels are originally Red Hat kernels which include fixes for a lot of 
known bugs which have not been fixed in -linus and also include a whole 
bunch of drivers for otherwise unsupported but neccesary hardware. They 
have also been heavily regression tested.

> performance, and file size, I would like to know first of all, what kernel
> version w/which patch w/which compiler makes a stable 2.4.x xfs kernel that
> won't trash my filesystem.  Second, I would like to know, in what way I can
> beat up my machine to test for these sort of failures that plagued previous
> versions of xfs?

Most stuff I just think up myself. I look around what programs I have and 
just run a lot of them simultaneously.

The amount of damage I have personally seen on a XFS fs was caused by 
something between the keyboard and chair. (eg. me)

Cheers

--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.