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

[Greg Clifton]

Shift in focus to the hardware side of the equation. This thread
concentrates on software generated corruption issues, but I have some
hardware related questions. First, with RAIDed hard drives, are any file
systems more or less likely to cause (or minimize) the likelihood of
corruption of the array and if so, why? Second Greg F (and others) have
commented on NOT using RAID 5 (and RAID 6) esp. with large hard drives.
Looks like 1 or 2 TB hard drives will soon be "standard issue" for
everything but notebook computers. So does that mean that RAID should be
considered 'dead,' except for 0, 1, 10? Third, would SSDs solve the failure
from bad sector issues with HDDs and thus be safe for RAID 5/6
implementations?


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net> wrote:
> ...
> > Does anyone out there use xfs? How about a suggestion for a stable
> replacement.
>
> If you use the xfs in the mainline kernel, it's a crap shoot because
> of the amount of churn in the code, but
> if you use a long-term kernel like 2.6.16.y, 2.6.27.y, or the kernels
> maintained by distros, then it ought to be stable (as long as the
> distro has enough of a user base for other people to find the xfs
> bugs first).
>
> --
>  Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net>
>  http://noserose.net/e/
>  http://www.coraid.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100422/e3d1b7d5/attachment.html