Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFs\s+stability\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFs\s+stability\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. XFs stability (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:50:00 +0530; I am totally new to XFs world so please bear with me for my ignorance. My query is how stable xfs is ? Or let's say which version of it is most stable. Any hint is welcome. TIA Mahesh; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00150.html (7,008 bytes)
2. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xx; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:58:51 -0500 (EST); FWIW, I've been running XFS on my server (not a very busy server, granted) for a couple of years, now, and haven't had any problems. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00151.html (8,326 bytes)
3. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: 21 Jul 2003 10:14:09 -0700; I use XFS exclusively on all my machines (at home and work). This includes several desktops, a laptop, a couple of servers and even my firewall. I've been using it for at least two years. No other av; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00152.html (8,561 bytes)
4. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:34:34 +0530; Thanks for the response Mike & Cliff, On our server though, which is basically a file server, serving clients files over NFS. We have had 4-5 instances of xfs_shutdown with message like "in-core memo; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00176.html (9,699 bytes)
5. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xx; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:19:35 -0400 (EDT); So you're using 2 year old code, and yet you're complaining about instability problems? 2 years is a lifetime in an open source project. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00177.html (7,971 bytes)
6. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: 22 Jul 2003 08:21:12 -0500; It is really difficult to have sympathy for you if you are running 2 year old code. There have been a vast number of improvements in the code since then. As for advantages/disadvantages, I will leave; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00178.html (9,100 bytes)
7. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:29:22 +0530; Agreed Steve and Lonnie. It's all my fault that I am on an ancient But as they 'once bitten twice shy', I am yet to gather courage to keep working with XFS. We have servers working on ext2/ext3 w/o a; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00179.html (9,612 bytes)
8. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xx; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:39:22 -0400 (EDT); It sounds like you already made up your mind what you want to do. Are you also running ext3 on a 2 year old kernel? I think if you're going to compare, it needs to be an equitable comparison. I know; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00180.html (8,580 bytes)
9. XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:50:00 +0530; I am totally new to XFs world so please bear with me for my ignorance. My query is how stable xfs is ? Or let's say which version of it is most stable. Any hint is welcome. TIA Mahesh; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00482.html (7,008 bytes)
10. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxx; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:58:51 -0500 (EST); FWIW, I've been running XFS on my server (not a very busy server, granted) for a couple of years, now, and haven't had any problems. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00483.html (8,326 bytes)
11. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 21 Jul 2003 10:14:09 -0700; I use XFS exclusively on all my machines (at home and work). This includes several desktops, a laptop, a couple of servers and even my firewall. I've been using it for at least two years. No other av; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00484.html (8,561 bytes)
12. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:34:34 +0530; Thanks for the response Mike & Cliff, On our server though, which is basically a file server, serving clients files over NFS. We have had 4-5 instances of xfs_shutdown with message like "in-core memo; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00508.html (9,699 bytes)
13. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxx; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:19:35 -0400 (EDT); So you're using 2 year old code, and yet you're complaining about instability problems? 2 years is a lifetime in an open source project. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00509.html (7,971 bytes)
14. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 22 Jul 2003 08:21:12 -0500; It is really difficult to have sympathy for you if you are running 2 year old code. There have been a vast number of improvements in the code since then. As for advantages/disadvantages, I will leave; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00510.html (9,100 bytes)
15. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:29:22 +0530; Agreed Steve and Lonnie. It's all my fault that I am on an ancient But as they 'once bitten twice shy', I am yet to gather courage to keep working with XFS. We have servers working on ext2/ext3 w/o a; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00511.html (9,612 bytes)
16. Re: XFs stability (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxx; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:39:22 -0400 (EDT); It sounds like you already made up your mind what you want to do. Are you also running ext3 on a 2 year old kernel? I think if you're going to compare, it needs to be an equitable comparison. I know; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00512.html (8,580 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]