Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster
Hi.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:22:38AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
> 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?
Not that I seek them, but sure I do have a few:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845233
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225651
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578354
845233 is my favorite, it took a lot of finger-pointing before we
understood the real reason. All of them are should be fixed by now.
Maybe. Ask Red Hat. And then test it somehow. And then ask Red Hat once
again.
Does it apply to Debian? I don't know as I have a luxury not to use xfs
in Debian.
> 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.
Ever tried gambling at casino? With your luck you'll win every time.
But seriously, if it works for you - who am I to argue?
Reco
Reply to: