| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume |
| From: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:14:52 -0600 |
| In-reply-to: | <201011121422.28993@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <75C248E3-2C99-426E-AE7D-9EC543726796@xxxxxxxx> <4CCD3CE6.8060407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <864DA9C9-B4A4-4B6B-A901-A457E2B9F5A5@xxxxxxxx> <201011121422.28993@xxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 |
Michael Monnerie put forth on 11/12/2010 7:22 AM: > I find the robustness of XFS amazing: You overwrote 1/5th of the disk > with zeroes, and it still works :-) This isn't "robustness" Michael. If anything it's a serious problem. XFS is reporting that hundreds or thousands of files that have been physically removed still exist. Regardless of how he arrived at this position, how is this "robust"? Most people would consider this inconsistency of state a "corruption" situation, not "robustness". -- Stan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests: add test for fallocate with hole punching, Josef Bacik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests 246: Test for race between direct I/O and mmap, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume, Michael Monnerie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume, Emmanuel Florac |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |