| 1 |
On Monday 30 October 2006 12:04, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 28 October 2006 23:39, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Dale ha scritto: |
| 5 |
> > > > If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not |
| 6 |
> > > > like power failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a |
| 7 |
> > > > second rig because of this very problem. If you have a UPS, |
| 8 |
> > > > that may be OK. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Thanks a lot for the advice. Power outages do happen and I don't |
| 11 |
> > > have an UPS. Why does it happen? Isn't XFS journaled? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Yes it is journaled but it also allows data to be very aggressively |
| 14 |
> > cached. Make that VERY aggressively cached. With the result that |
| 15 |
> > data can be held in a huge cache somewhere and the kernel can be |
| 16 |
> > convinced it has been written to disk. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> No journaled filesystem can 100% prevent data loss or even filesystem |
| 19 |
> corruption in cases of power outages. Think of the the builtin caches |
| 20 |
> of your drive. If that builtin cache contains a changed journal (not |
| 21 |
> written to the actual drive yet) when a power failure occurs => bang! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
All the more reason to take the intended usage of XFS seriously - in |
| 24 |
environments where power loss to the machine simply do not happen |
| 25 |
(redundant psus, UPS backup, etc) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
alan |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives