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

[Jeff Hubbs]

Not using RAID5/6?  That's where I found myself last year, making arrays 
from 1TB SATA drives.  It doesn't mean RAID5/6 is totally dead; it's 
just that its preferability regime (hey, new buzzword!) has been pushed 
into territory I'm unlikely to inhabit with drives of that size.  But 
there are still very fast <<1TB drives where it would be perfectly 
reasonable to use RAID5/6 under certain conditions.

SSD drives?  When their sizes get into the 1-2TB range (as I understand 
they are), I don't think you're any less likely to accumulate 
unrecoverable read errors with them as you would with spinny-parts 
drives; they may even be *more* susceptible; both are going to be 
susceptible to getting sledgehammered by (mostly) stray neutrons but I 
have no idea how that impacts HDDs vs. SSDs in practice (Google 
"'Oh-My-God' Particle").

On 4/22/10 1:05 PM, Greg Clifton wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:ecashin at noserose.net>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:ecashin at noserose.net>>
>     http://noserose.net/e/
>     http://www.coraid.com/
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ale mailing list
>     Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>     See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>     http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100422/3e165b03/attachment.html