From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:23:31 -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 k6J2NADW007736 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:23:10 -0700 Subject: Re: stable xfs From: Ming Zhang Reply-To: mingz@ele.uri.edu In-Reply-To: <20060719095400.A1936041@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060719095400.A1936041@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:15:53 -0400 Message-Id: <1153271753.2669.276.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: Nathan Scott Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com thanks a lot for this detail explanation! i will check both 2.6.17 -stable release and sles kernel. unfortunately, i only play with RHEL so far. Ming On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 09:54 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:30:23AM -0400, Ming Zhang wrote: > > 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! > > Use the latest 2.6.17 -stable release, or a vendor kernel (SLES is > particularly good with XFS, as SGI works closely with SUSE). > > The current batch of corruption reports is due to one unfortunate > bug that has slipped through our QA testing net, which happily is > a fairly rare occurence (it was a very subtle bug). > > XFS also tends to get a bad rap (IMO) from the way it reports on-disk > corruption and I/O errors in critical data structures, which is quite > different to many other filesystems - it dumps a stack trace into the > system log (alot of people mistake that for a panic) and "shuts down" > the filesystem, with subsequent accesses returning errors until the > problem is resolved. > > > ps, one friend mentioned that XFS has some issue with LVM+MD under it. > > Is this true? > > No. > > cheers. >