On 7/27/2010 11:20 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Aaron Toponce put forth on 7/27/2010 10:41 AM: > >> XFS has also had a history for randomly corrupting data. While this >> might have improved over time, I don't trust it. > > Can you cite or reference anything to back your claim? Time frame? Irix or > Linux? Serious users reported this or casual/hobbyist users? If this was > ever the case the situation could not have lasted long before patches fixed > it. Have you seen SGI's customer list and the size of the systems and storage > they run with nothing but XFS? For instance, NAS has over 1.4PB of XFS > filesystems, 1PB CXFS and over 400TB XFS:
We have used it three times in the past, and lost about 5TB worth of data due to corruption. The data corruption appeared to not be the result of lost power to the drive. Imperical evidence is enough for me to stop trusting it. I've also had friends who are admins that have complained of XFS data corruption, mainly with regards to booting. I don't know their specific scenarios, but they stopped using XFS as well. > NASA trusts it with over 1PB of storage, but _you_ don't trust it? Who are > you again? How many hundreds of TB of storage do you manage on EXT3/4? ;) I guess NASA has us beat. Nothing in the PB range, that's for sure. Currently, at my location, we have about 40 TB of SAN, with another 50 TB on the way. In production, we have about 200 TB SAN. We'll be building a federated shadowing infrastructure that well have Oracle databases in 16 different locations across the United States. We're currently targeting about 20 TB in each of the 16 locations. We won't be deploying XFS. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
