From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246D37F37 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:02:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:02:16 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list Message-ID: <20130610200216.GQ20932@sgi.com> References: <51B45CFD.20500@hardwarefreak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51B45CFD.20500@hardwarefreak.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stan Hoeppner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hey Stan, On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 05:46:21AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > In a recent linux-raid list thread here: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=137072140106867&w=2 > > seriously flawed arguments against the reliability of XFS, and even the > performance of XFS, are made. The OP even quotes Dave's LCA > presentation as a performance reason to avoid XFS. The party really > gets started at paragraph 7. > > I made a brief effort to debunk his claims and explained that he can't > have O_PONIES, that he should use fsync or O_DIRECT, etc for data > safety. To non experts/advanced filesystem users, his long winded > argument may be persuasive. Obviously none of you experts has time to > debunk every such post, but this one may be worth a read at least, > especially given the weight Google gives to vger lists. I gave it a quick read, but since I'm not on linux-raid I don't have a good way to reply to Steve. Could you bounce that message over? I'd be happy to try to address a point or two... Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs