From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n1DAD3dN127295 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:13:04 -0600 Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CECCA192C934 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.162.198]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NYwkDxlsGWhWneoE for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (h081217054243.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.54.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv1.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5229C3FCE for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:12:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4983F400154 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:12:27 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: xfs_force_shutdown after Raid crash Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:12:26 +0100 References: <498376CF.8020806@renderforce.de> <20090204122625.GM24173@disturbed> <200902041603.22541@zmi.at> In-Reply-To: <200902041603.22541@zmi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902131112.26910@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mittwoch 04 Februar 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Mittwoch 04 Februar 2009 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > What just comes to my mind: what about XEN/VMware? > > > > > > What settings should be used within a virtual machine? Even if I > > > have battery backed cache and nobarrier on the host, the VM > > > itself could crash, or the whole host freeze. Is "nobarrier" save > > > within a VM? > > > > Depends on the implementation of the hypervisor. > > OK, so we don't know? > I guess VMware will be the most used for Linux systems, and XEN usage > will soon grow a lot as it's directly in the kernel now. Does anybody > know for those two, whether "nobarrier" is save/needed/a bad thing? Does anybody know about XEN/VMware? It would be interesting, maybe worth a FAQ entry if we have a good answer. mfg zmi -- // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs