On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 23:39 +0000, George N. White III wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Greg Folkert wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 12:03 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > >> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:45:01PM +0200, Andreas Grabner wrote: > >> > >>> can anybody explain the following to me? It happens in full production > >>> use. Should i change back to ext3 ? > >>> > >> > >> I can't explain it since I've never had a kernel error and never used > >> XFS. Not that I'm suggesting that they go together :). > >> > >> Personally, I use JFS with flaky power and have never had a problem. > > Some people have played Russian roulette and didn't have a problem on the > first couple pulls of the trigger. The ones that did haven't been > posting on usenet. > > > I can say the same about XFS. > > At one time, XFS on i386 hardware was known to be fragile, especially when > using IDE disks. If you wanted to use XFS, you needed to build a kernel > with ample stack space due to nesting of calls with long argument lists > when handling errors under heavy I/O. > > What hardware and kernel are you using for XFS and what sort of I/O loads > do you have? Even back on 2.4.12 (or was it 2.4.4 or something like that... with the VM problems also kicking in issues) when this was true, I still had zero problems ON i386 AND IDE drives... just not Western Digital IDE drives as XFS would trigger the firmware on the drives to have difficulties. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part