From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD2929DF8 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 07:13:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAC1304032 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 05:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 83oajnjIGAeoBw4k for ; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 05:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r59CD5a3012342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 08:13:05 -0400 Received: from tunkums.home (ovpn-113-21.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.21]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r59CD4Jt015574 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 08:13:05 -0400 Message-ID: <51B47150.6000500@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:13:04 -0400 From: Ric Wheeler MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: attack upon XFS, misinformation abounds, linux-raid list References: <51B45CFD.20500@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <51B45CFD.20500@hardwarefreak.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 06/09/2013 06:46 AM, 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. Thanks for pointing that out - I responded as well. Funny that he decided to use ext4 after basing it on a google search for "xfs zero" and did not bother to the same query with "ext4 zero length files" :) Ric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs