| To: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list |
| From: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 09 Jun 2013 05:46:21 -0500 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Reply-to: | stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 |
In a recent linux-raid list thread here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=137072140106867&w=2 seriously flawed arguments against the reliability of XFS, and even the performance of XFS, are made. The OP even quotes Dave's LCA presentation as a performance reason to avoid XFS. The party really gets started at paragraph 7. I made a brief effort to debunk his claims and explained that he can't have O_PONIES, that he should use fsync or O_DIRECT, etc for data safety. To non experts/advanced filesystem users, his long winded argument may be persuasive. Obviously none of you experts has time to debunk every such post, but this one may be worth a read at least, especially given the weight Google gives to vger lists. -- Stan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Marketing Interactivo y ComunicaciÃn Digital, IEDGE Business School |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list, Ric Wheeler |
| Previous by Thread: | Marketing Interactivo y ComunicaciÃn Digital, IEDGE Business School |
| Next by Thread: | Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list, Ric Wheeler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |