Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*stable\s+xfs\s*$/: 99 ]

Total 99 documents matching your query.

1. stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:30:23 -0400
Hi All We want to use XFS in all of our production servers but feel a little scary about the corruption problems seen in this list. I wonder which 2.6.16+ kernel we can use in order to get a stable X
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00158.html (7,489 bytes)

2. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:20:32 +0100
XFS is complex but quite stable code. Most of the reports about ''corruption'' are consequences of not being aware of what it was designed for, how it works and how it should be used...
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00175.html (8,052 bytes)

3. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:36:06 -0400
Thanks for your response. But could you give me an example on what is an improper use? Ming
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00179.html (8,918 bytes)

4. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:14:21 +0100
Well, this mailing list is full of them :-). However it is easier to say what is an optimal use: * A 64 bit system. * With a large, parallel storage system. * The block IO system handles all storage
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00181.html (9,639 bytes)

5. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:54:00 +1000
Use the latest 2.6.17 -stable release, or a vendor kernel (SLES is particularly good with XFS, as SGI works closely with SUSE). The current batch of corruption reports is due to one unfortunate bug t
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00182.html (9,298 bytes)

6. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:44 -0400
when u say large parallel storage system, you mean independent spindles right? but most people will have all disks configured in one RAID5/6 and thus it is not parallel any more. so current MD/LVM/SA
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00183.html (11,134 bytes)

7. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:15:53 -0400
thanks a lot for this detail explanation! i will check both 2.6.17 -stable release and sles kernel. unfortunately, i only play with RHEL so far. Ming
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00184.html (9,837 bytes)

8. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:56:21 -0700
it depends, you might have 100s of spindles in groups, you don't make a giant raid5/6 array with that many disks, you make a number of smaller arrays with barrier support a UPS shouldn't be necessary
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00185.html (9,809 bytes)

9. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Martin Steigerwald <ms@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:40:05 +0200
Am Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2006 01:54 schrieb Nathan Scott: Hello Nathan, as far as I can see the fix for kernel bug #6757 has not yet made it in a stable kernel release upto 2.6.17.6 and thus should manu
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00187.html (9,407 bytes)

10. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:24:17 +0100
[ ... ] As I was saying... pg> Most of the reports about ''corruption'' are consequences pg> of not being aware of what it was designed for, how it pg> works and how it should be used... mingz> [ ..
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00190.html (10,209 bytes)

11. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:24 +0100
Perhaps you are undestimating the ''if it can be done'' mindset... Also, if one does a number of smaller RAID5s, is each one a separate filesystem or they get aggregated, for example with LVM with '
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00192.html (11,730 bytes)

12. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:11:10 -0400
what kind of "ram vs fs" size ratio here will be a safe/good/proper one? any rule of thumb? thanks! hope not 1:1. :) Ming
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00194.html (11,275 bytes)

13. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:11:30 -0400
yes. thx for reminding. Ming
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00196.html (9,507 bytes)

14. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:10:06 -0400
right i mean with UPS and huge write cache, but no write barrier.
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00197.html (11,061 bytes)

15. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:45:04 -0400
could u give us some hints on this? since it is really popular to have a FS/LV/MD structure and I believe LVM is designed for this purpose. then i think unless you disable all write cache, none of th
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00198.html (13,520 bytes)

16. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:12:09 -0700
IDE/SATA doesn't have barrier to lie about (the kernel has to flush and wait in those cases). Sanely written applications shouldn't lose data. any sane database should be safe, it will fsync or simil
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00212.html (10,830 bytes)

17. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:15:27 -0700
it depends very much on what you are doing i recent dealt with a corrupted filesystem that xfs_repair needed over 1GB to deal with -- the kicker is the filesystem was only 20GB, so that's 20:1 for xf
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00213.html (10,282 bytes)

18. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:08:22 -0400
we mainly handle large media files like 20-50GB. so file number is not too much. but file size is large. hope i never need to run repair, but i do need to defrag from time to time. hope this does not
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00223.html (11,499 bytes)

19. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:17:07 -0700
xfs_repair usually deals with that fairly well in reality (much better than lots of small files anyhow) if you preallocate you can avoid that (this is what i do, i preallocate in the replication daem
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00228.html (11,328 bytes)

20. Re: stable xfs (score: 1)
Author: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:38:01 -0400
sounds cool. yes, large # of small files are always painful. i could not control my application. so i still need to do defrag some time. yes. i should find out. hope to force a repair? unplug my powe
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00230.html (12,307 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu