[ale] XFS on Linux - Is it ready for prime time?

[Jim Kinney]

How odd. I started using xfs before it was a native thing in redhat (pre
RHEL stuff, pre ext3 days). It seemed to always be solid and reliable. It
was provided by SGI ( and all the port was provided by SGI as well) and it
had a solid track record as the file system that was suitable for huge
amounts of data (moving video files was common use). It worked on all of my
stuff for all RAID I threw at it. It was imperative to install the xfs-tools
to work with it but it sounds like you already have it. If xfs-check is
dying due to ram issues, I would be more suspicious of bad hard drives than
the xfs code. If there has been a ton of write/delete/write cycles on the
drives then the journalling may be corrupted. I'm not sure how to fix that.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net> wrote:

>
> I'm consulting at a company that wants to turn their Linux based NAS in to
> a reliable product.  They initially chose XFS because they were under the
> impression that it was high performance but what they got was something of
> questionable reliability. I have identified and patched several serious bugs
> (2.6.29) and I have a feeling there are more unidentified ones out there.
> Furthermore, xfs_check craps out of memory every time so we have to do an
> xfs_repair at boot and it takes forever.  But today we got into a situation
> where xfs_repair can't repair the disk (a raid5 array btw).
>
> Does anyone out there use xfs? How about a suggestion for a stable
> replacement.
> --
> doug mcnash
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>



-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III
Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100421/af130c39/attachment.html