From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 08 Jan 2007 06:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l08Eshqw023908 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 06:54:44 -0800 Message-ID: <45A25800.6060603@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:41:04 +0100 From: Klaus Strebel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What's wrong with XFS? References: <936386.57179.qm@web59111.mail.re1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <936386.57179.qm@web59111.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Dave N Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Dave N schrieb: > Hi, > > Even MySQL provides me with better data-integrity here. If I'm doing some database transaction and the power fails, I can be pretty sure that *most* of the time, MySQL will be just fine next time I boot up. Hallo Dave, MySQL is an application which takes care of data-integrity ( which XFS depends on, as you stated yourself ;-) ). XFS takes care of the filesystem-integrity, to enable your MySQL to find the files it's caring of it's content-integrity ( as an application, you see ;-) ) > > Why oh why such a beautiful file system like XFS is so terrible at data-integrity? Look what Sun Microsystems did with their new ZFS file system... full atomicity, CRC checksumming and other features to ensure data-integrity... why can't XFS have such things? To mount multi-gigabyte filesystems after some kind of desaster in minutes, not in hours or days ;-). It's only caring for meta-data, not the data. > > Thanks for listening to my preaching here guys > > Cheers! -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / best regards Klaus Strebel, Dipl.-Inform. (FH), mailto:klaus.strebel@gmx.net /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \