* Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 @ 2006-08-08 7:34 Manuel Reimer 2006-08-08 8:50 ` Nathan Scott 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Manuel Reimer @ 2006-08-08 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 2006-08-08 7:34 Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 Manuel Reimer @ 2006-08-08 8:50 ` Nathan Scott 2006-08-08 9:00 ` Jeffrey Hundstad 2006-08-08 9:34 ` Manuel Reimer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Nathan Scott @ 2006-08-08 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manuel Reimer; +Cc: linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 2006-08-08 8:50 ` Nathan Scott @ 2006-08-08 9:00 ` Jeffrey Hundstad 2006-08-08 9:34 ` Manuel Reimer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Hundstad @ 2006-08-08 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Manuel Reimer, linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 2006-08-08 8:50 ` Nathan Scott 2006-08-08 9:00 ` Jeffrey Hundstad @ 2006-08-08 9:34 ` Manuel Reimer 2006-08-08 10:10 ` Nathan Scott 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Manuel Reimer @ 2006-08-08 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 2006-08-08 9:34 ` Manuel Reimer @ 2006-08-08 10:10 ` Nathan Scott 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Nathan Scott @ 2006-08-08 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manuel Reimer; +Cc: linux-kernel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-08 10:10 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-08-08 7:34 Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 Manuel Reimer 2006-08-08 8:50 ` Nathan Scott 2006-08-08 9:00 ` Jeffrey Hundstad 2006-08-08 9:34 ` Manuel Reimer 2006-08-08 10:10 ` Nathan Scott
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox