On Wed, 23 May 2007, Andreas Grabner wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 22.05.2007, 22:23 -0400 schrieb Greg Folkert:On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 23:39 +0000, George N. White III wrote:On Tue, 22 May 2007, Greg Folkert wrote:can anybody explain the following to me? It happens in full production use. Should i change back to ext3At 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?2 Segate Disks ST3400620A (IDE) with Software RAID1 and LVM on it. Standard Debian SMP Kernel Linux storage01 2.6.18-4-686 #1 SMP Wed Apr 18 09:55:10 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux 2 * Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz (dual core) on Intel Board I/O loads produced by moving a lot of files via samba through a 100Mbit/s link
I'd want to do some serious testing before using XFS in your environment. Is there a reason you can't use ext3? XFS is needed in situations where you are losing data and or money while systems are down (remote sensing and other time-critical high-volume data collection, numerical simulation, video production, etc.). I'd venture that most heavily used XFS systems are not using (register-starved) ix86, and are using SCSI, FC, or SAS storage. You aren't getting the full benefits of all the testing that has been done.
-- George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca>