On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say > "forced", but note that I didn't say it) and they *knew* that xfs will > lead to data loss if used without battery-backed storage. > > >> I'm not sure exactly what you consider "controversial" about XFS. It's >> just a file system that you can choose to use, or not. > > Random slowdowns for no good reason. Data loss on power failure. Kernel > panics at xfs-specific parts of the kernel just because. > Saw a lot of such stuff. The solution was the same every time - fsck it > (ambiguity is intentional here), we're moving survived data to ext4. Have you got links to further comments on this issue, by others? I've been using xfs happily (but not exclusively) for lots of stuff for years, but would like to read about problems if they exist. I think I remember problems early on (maybe 2005ish). And I think I remember seeing problems when using LVM snapshots under it, but haven't tried that again since. Cheers, Richard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature