Re: {evil tone} is it safe?

[Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:49 19-9-2002 -0700, Gabe E. Nydick wrote:
> So, I was a pilot user of XFS 1.0 and it caused all sorts of problems and
> corruptions, but I stuck with it until about 2.4.17, which was around when
> ext3 was ready, give or take some time.  I would like to get the performance
> and scalability back of XFS, so here is the question.  Is it finally ready?
> What are the outstanding bugs that need to be fixed.

I have used XFS longer then this without too much hassle. It is good enough 
for me.

I can not speak for others to determine of XFS is ready. You need to test 
it before putting it into production at your site.

I'd say that the official release tend to keep working reasonably well. But 
even the original XFS 1.0 (2.4.2!) was not good enough for the oss.sgi.com 
at that time and died rather quickly in just under a day. If you compare 
this to the 1.1 (2.4.9 or 2.4.18) release a lot has changed in between. And 
even now the gap between 2.4.19 and the 1.1 release is 5 months!

Don't forget that the stability of XFS is also determined by the system it 
is running on and depends on the rest of the kernel to cooperate.

I couldn't get a box stable with a faulty memory dimm and I don't expect 
that a filesystem would be able to work around that. Thus I experienced all 
sorts of corruptions and problems, but hardly XFS specific. I just wasn't 
trying hard enough using another filesystem.

Cheers

--
Seth
It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew.