From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Moshe Yudkowsky Subject: Re: RAID needs more to survive a power hit, different /boot layout for example (was Re: draft howto on making raids for surviving a disk crash) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:31:08 -0600 Message-ID: <47A72FBC.9090701@pobox.com> References: <47A612BE.5050707@pobox.com> <47A623EE.4050305@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <47A62A17.70101@pobox.com> <47A6DA81.3030008@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <47A6EFCF.9080906@pobox.com> <47A7188A.4070005@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <47A72061.3010800@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47A72061.3010800@sandeen.net> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Justin Piszcz , Michael Tokarev , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids Eric, Thanks very much for your note. I'm becoming very leery of resiserfs at the moment... I'm about to run another series of crash tests. Eric Sandeen wrote: > Justin Piszcz wrote: > >> Why avoid XFS entirely? >> >> esandeen, any comments here? > > Heh; well, it's the meme. Well, yeah... > Note also that ext3 has the barrier option as well, but it is not > enabled by default due to performance concerns. Barriers also affect > xfs performance, but enabling them in the non-battery-backed-write-cache > scenario is the right thing to do for filesystem integrity. So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that current the most reliable fs in its default configuration, in terms of protection against power-loss scenarios, is XFS? -- Moshe Yudkowsky * moshe@pobox.com * www.pobox.com/~moshe "There is something fundamentally wrong with a country [USSR] where the citizens want to buy your underwear." -- Paul Thereaux