Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16

Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16

[Manuel Reimer]

Hello,

could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16? 
There have been some bugs:

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757

and maybe there are more of them. I would like to stay on the 2.6.16 
branch as I don't like to update my kernel several times a week. I just 
want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.

Thank you very much in advance

Yours

Manuel Reimer

Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16

[Nathan Scott]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16? 
> There have been some bugs:
> 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757

These are the same problem.  2.6.16 is unaffected.

> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.

For XFS, its goodness.  2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16

[Jeffrey Hundstad]

Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16? 
>> There have been some bugs:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
>>     
>
> These are the same problem.  2.6.16 is unaffected.
>
>   
>> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
>>     
>
> For XFS, its goodness.  2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.
>
> cheers.
>
>   

If you have run 2.6.17 to 2.6.17.6 or early 2.6.18-rc? however; please 
run a xfs_repair v.2.6.10; because the corruption may/will have already 
taken place and a silent time bomb may be waiting.  Three machines 
already died with symptom of the corruption on kernels that no longer 
have the problem.

-- 
Jeffrey Hundstad

Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16

[Manuel Reimer]

Nathan Scott schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16? 
>> There have been some bugs:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
> 
> These are the same problem.  2.6.16 is unaffected.

But the bug has been filed for 2.6.16.4.

Did you want to say, that the latest 2.6.16 is unaffected?

>> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
> 
> For XFS, its goodness.  2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.

What exactly did you want to tell with this sentence. Sorry, but my 
native language is german...

Is it a good solution to stay on the 2.6.16 branch? Of course I could 
use 2.6.17 or 2.6.18 but I want to update the kernel as infrequent as 
possible. After 2.6.18 there will be 2.6.19 and 2.6.20. If I continue 
that way, then I'll have more downtime than uptime.

Thank you very much in advance

Yours

Manuel

Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16

[Nathan Scott]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:34:10AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> Nathan Scott schrieb:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16? 
> >> There have been some bugs:
> >>
> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
> > 
> > These are the same problem.  2.6.16 is unaffected.
> 
> But the bug has been filed for 2.6.16.4.

Indeed, once the corruption exists ondisk all kernels will detect it.
Read through the entire bug, many details come toward the end.

> Did you want to say, that the latest 2.6.16 is unaffected?

All 2.6.16's are unaffected.

> >> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
> > 
> > For XFS, its goodness.  2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.
> 
> What exactly did you want to tell with this sentence. Sorry, but my 
> native language is german...

Sorry, I meant to say "theres nothing wrong with 2.6.16".

> Is it a good solution to stay on the 2.6.16 branch? Of course I could 

Yes, thats fine.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan