From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen 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 10:45:19 -0600 Message-ID: <47A7411F.2040702@sandeen.net> 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> <47A72FBC.9090701@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47A72FBC.9090701@pobox.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Moshe Yudkowsky Cc: Justin Piszcz , Michael Tokarev , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids Moshe Yudkowsky wrote: > 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? I wouldn't go that far without some real-world poweroff testing, because various fs's are probably more or less tolerant of a write-cache evaporation. I suppose it'd depend on the size of the write cache as well. -Eric