From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orca.ele.uri.edu (orca.ele.uri.edu [131.128.51.63])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k6HFUtDW000892
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:30:56 -0700
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (c-71-232-42-50.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [71.232.42.50])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by orca.ele.uri.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6HFUTBk020772
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO)
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:30:29 -0400
Subject: stable xfs
From: Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu>
Reply-To: mingz@ele.uri.edu
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:30:23 -0400
Message-Id: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: xfs
To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com

Hi All

We want to use XFS in all of our production servers but feel a little
scary about the corruption problems seen in this list. I wonder which
2.6.16+ kernel we can use in order to get a stable XFS? Thanks!

ps, one friend mentioned that XFS has some issue with LVM+MD under it.
Is this true?


Ming