On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Brandon Ooi <brand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Ross Walker <rswwal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One was a hardware raid over fibre channel, which silently corrupted > > itself. System checked out fine, raid array checked out fine, xfs was > > replaced with ext3, and the system ran without issue. > > > > Second was multiple hardware arrays over linux md raid0, also over fibre > > channel. This was not so silent corruption, as in xfs would detect it > > and lock the filesystem into read-only before it, pardon the pun, truly > > fscked itself. Happened two or three times, before we gave up, split up > > the raid, and went ext3, Again, no issues. > > Every now and then I hear these XFS horror stories. They seem too impossible > to believe. > > Nothing breaks for absolutely no reason and failure to know where the > breakage was shows that maybe there wasn't adequately skilled techinicians > for the technology deployed. > > XFS if run in a properly configured environment will run flawlessly. > > > That's not entirely true. Even in Centos 5.3(?), we ran into an issue of XFS > running on an md array would lock up for seemingly no reason due to possible > corruption. I've even bookmarked the relevant bug thread for posterity sake > since it caused us so much grief. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512552
Once I had ext3 corrupt on a NAS box with a bad controller. Can I not recommend using it? Should it have detected or prevented this corruption from occurring? Maybe it isn't safe? For every one bad experience with a given technology there are thousands of success stories. All software has bugs and advocacy really shouldn't play a part in determining the proper technology, it should be picked for the application and by it's merits and as with anything, thoroughly tested before put into production. -Ross
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
