From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m14Gj1tc009037 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:45:04 -0800 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 72791D82E15 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:45:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id iHef4ycfGfTWF5Fp for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:45:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47A7411F.2040702@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:45:19 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: RAID needs more to survive a power hit, different /boot layout for example (was Re: draft howto on making raids for surviving a disk crash) References: <47A612BE.5050707@pobox.com> <47A623EE.4050305@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <47A62A17.70101@pobox.com> <47A6DA81.3030008@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <47A6EFCF.9080906@pobox.com> <47A7188A.4070005@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <47A72061.3010800@sandeen.net> <47A72FBC.9090701@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <47A72FBC.9090701@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Moshe Yudkowsky Cc: Justin Piszcz , Michael Tokarev , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Moshe Yudkowsky wrote: > So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that current the most > reliable fs in its default configuration, in terms of protection against > power-loss scenarios, is XFS? I wouldn't go that far without some real-world poweroff testing, because various fs's are probably more or less tolerant of a write-cache evaporation. I suppose it'd depend on the size of the write cache as well. -Eric