| 1 |
On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dale ha scritto: |
| 3 |
> > If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like |
| 4 |
> > power failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig |
| 5 |
> > because of this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Thanks a lot for the advice. Power outages do happen and I don't have |
| 8 |
> an UPS. Why does it happen? Isn't XFS journaled? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yes it is journaled but it also allows data to be very aggressively |
| 11 |
cached. Make that VERY aggressively cached. With the result that data |
| 12 |
can be held in a huge cache somewhere and the kernel can be convinced |
| 13 |
it has been written to disk. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Consider XFS's pedigree - SGI wrote it for their graphics machines. |
| 16 |
These were big monsters backed up with high grade UPSs and such - the |
| 17 |
logic was that if you spend a brazillion bucks on hardware, a mega UPS |
| 18 |
is part of the deal, along with the wages to pay the army of admins you |
| 19 |
also need. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And, when doing video rendering, it turns out that it's easier to simply |
| 22 |
re-render a frame when the filesystems does something odd with the data |
| 23 |
rather than go to the effort of writing an FS that is 100% reliable. So |
| 24 |
SGI sacrificed something that doesn't actually matter for their use |
| 25 |
case to gain a significant performace increase (which does matter a |
| 26 |
great deal) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
alan |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives