On 06/28/05 06:03:25AM +0200, Prakash Punnoor wrote: > Jim Crilly schrieb: > > On 06/28/05 01:06:54AM +0200, Prakash Punnoor wrote: > > > >>So I gave ext3 a try. Very robust, but at the same time slooow. I couldn't > >>bear it after some months. So I gave xfs another try. Yes, now it felt much > >>better. Still not that fast as reiserfs, IIRC, but better than the first > >>time > >>I tried. I am still having xfs on / and it works pretty well, and is rather > >>robust against hard locks with about the same amount of data losing as > >>reiserfs. But what annoys me very much, is that I have to run xfs_repair by > >>hand and by booting from another partition. Even after a hard lock, the > >>partition mounts w/o problems and everything seems OK, but it only seems > >>like > >>that. In fact after some hours/days of use, you'll notice oddities, like > >>files > >>or directories which cannot be removed and things like that. After running > >>xfs_repair everything is back in order. > > > > > > I don't know what was going on with your systems, but I've been using XFS > > since the original 1.0 Linux release from SGI and I'd guess that I've had > > to run > > xfs_repair less than 10 times and most of them were on Alpha and Sparc64 > > before issues with those arches got ironed out. > > Perhaps it is due to the fact that I use xfs on software RAID-0 and both HDs > have 8MB cache write-back enabled? So, all in all 16MB needs to be commited > on/before lock-up, maybe too much for xfs? (This situation was no prob for > ext3, though. Thinking again, I never used reiser V3 or V4 on the RAID-0, so > my comparison might not have been fair.)
Maybe, I've never used XFS on software RAID-0. The Sparc64 I mentioned has it's XFS filesystem on software RAID-1 and that's introduced no problems, but I've seen way too many drives die to risk running RAID-0. > > Prakash Jim.
