----- Original Message ----- | On Tuesday 12 April 2011 17:36:39 John Jasen wrote: | > On 04/12/2011 10:21 AM, Boris Epstein wrote: | > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Alain Péan | > > <alain.p...@lpp.polytechnique.fr | > | > > <mailto:alain.p...@lpp.polytechnique.fr>> wrote: | > <snipped: two recommendations for XFS> | > | > I would chime in with a dis-commendation for XFS. At my previous | > employer, two cases involving XFS resulted in irrecoverable data | > corruption. These were on RAID systems running from 4 to 20 TB. | | Can someone(who actually knows) share with us, what is the state of | xfs-utils, | how stable and usable are they for recovery of broken XFS filesystems? | | Marian | | _______________________________________________ | CentOS mailing list | CentOS@centos.org | http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 64-bit platforms the tools are totally stable, but it does depend on the degree of "broken" state that the file system is in. I've had xfs_checks run for days and eat up 96GB of memory because of various degrees of "broken"-ness. These are on 35 and 45TB file systems. Be prepared to throw memory at the problem or lots of swap files if you get really buggered up. -- James A. Peltier IT Services - Research Computing Group Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 778-782-6573 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpelt...@sfu.ca Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
