From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l08FPHqw029952 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 07:25:18 -0800 Message-ID: <45A26227.2080907@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:24:23 +0100 From: Klaus Strebel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What's wrong with XFS? References: <936386.57179.qm@web59111.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070108144549.GA12073@tuatara.stupidest.org> In-Reply-To: <20070108144549.GA12073@tuatara.stupidest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 Chris Wedgwood schrieb: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 05:13:12AM -0800, Dave N wrote: > >> KDE, I was surprised to find out that all my desktop icons were >> messed up all over the place. > > KDE made assumptions which are not only not true on linux but not true > elsewhere either. Last I checked KDE dealt with the common cases that > were problematic much better now. > >> The other time, again power outage, only this time I was working on >> a small text file. Booted up again only to find out that the file I >> was working on contained garbage and I had to start all over again. > > The file should not have contained garbage. Also, if you > open+truncate+write a file it should be flushed very soon after close > these days, the window is fairly small now. > >> I also heard that XFS depends heavily on the application side for >> its data-integrity. XFS "thinks" that the application will use the >> proper calls when writing to disk. What???? How is it the task of >> the application to ensure the safety of your files??? > > It's always been that way, for many many years, even before Linux > existed. If you want your applictions to be portable and reliable > then you have to do do it right. > > MTAs are a good example of applications which typically get this right > because people case about lost email and the authors typically take > some effort into make sure it's right. > >> IMO, programs are there to provide the tools to be productive, NOT >> to ensure the data safety of your files, that's the task of the file >> system. Even MySQL provides me with better data-integrity here. > > Does MySQL allow me to read or write 100s of MB/s continuously on > cheap hardware (for not so cheap hardware I could ask 7GB/s). > >> Why oh why such a beautiful file system like XFS is so terrible at >> data-integrity? > > There is a cost to full data journalling. Personally even with ext3 I > find the impact of this high enough I don't use it. > >> Look what Sun Microsystems did with their new ZFS file >> system... full atomicity, CRC checksumming and other features to >> ensure data-integrity... > > You could argue XFS is showing it's age, it's far from a new > filesystem these days. > > ZFS is a very different animal to most traditional filesystems. > >> why can't XFS have such things? > > Because the realities of life sometime collide with what people want > ideally. > > Linux can't have ZFS for licensing reasons but you can have Solaris > with ZFS: http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/ > > FYI, just found this ;-) Klaus -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / best regards Klaus Strebel, Dipl.-Inform. (FH), mailto:klaus.strebel@gmx.net /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \