Re: Data safety horror stories?

[Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1742 bytes --]

Am Montag 11 Februar 2008 schrieb Felix E. Klee:
> Hi Justin,

Hi Felix,

> > Improperly written applications and/or improperly configured systems
> > might have issues with recently written files losing data.
>
> Again, just to make sure that I understood you correctly: Could you
> name an example?

I recommend to read my article about write barriers and journalling 
filesystems for some basic understanding.
 
http://www.linux-magazin.de/heft_abo/sonderheft/2006/04/beschraenktes_schreiben?category=0

its in german tough. Actually I thought it should have been translated to 
english for Linux Magazine under the title "Imposing Order", but I do not 
find it on the net and it might have not been published.

Note: There is a mistake in it regarding history of write barriers. Write 
barriers are not supported via device mapper. Thats why I do not use LVM 
on my notebook for my productive data.

> > Just my opinion as an XFS user, your mileage might vary.
>
> Hopefully, it's not about opinions ...

I had not had any problems since quite some kernel releases. And there 
were some power losses involved ;). At earlier times Akregator (an KDE 
newsreader) said its opml was broken and a backup was restored after such 
a power loss... but not since quite some kernel releases.

I had one nasty problem with corrupt data in files but that was with a 
kernel that was patched with Con Koliva's patchset and didn't happen in 
mainline.

So since 2.6.17.7 XFS has been pretty stable for me. On a ThinkPad T42, a 
ThinkPad T23 and half a dozen of workstations at work ;-).

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]