From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oB4ASeKR146814 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 04:28:40 -0600 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D355C1C95399 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 02:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id LDMgRWJzaTBo1yFs for ; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from shambhala.localnet (ppp-93-104-153-33.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.153.33]) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08D22BA for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:30:22 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: xfs_repair of critical volume Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:30:19 +0100 References: <75C248E3-2C99-426E-AE7D-9EC543726796@ucsc.edu> <201011121422.28993@zmi.at> <4CDDBC5C.7020708@hardwarefreak.com> (sfid-20101113_121516_584378_2321CE16) In-Reply-To: <4CDDBC5C.7020708@hardwarefreak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201012041130.20344.Martin@lichtvoll.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Am Freitag 12 November 2010 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > Michael Monnerie put forth on 11/12/2010 7:22 AM: > > I find the robustness of XFS amazing: You overwrote 1/5th of the disk > > with zeroes, and it still works :-) > > This isn't "robustness" Michael. If anything it's a serious problem. > XFS is reporting that hundreds or thousands of files that have been > physically removed still exist. Regardless of how he arrived at this > position, how is this "robust"? Most people would consider this > inconsistency of state a "corruption" situation, not "robustness". I think its necessary to differentiate here: 1) It appears to be robustness - or pure luck - regarding metadata consistency of the filesystem. I tend to believe its pure luck and that XFS just stored the metadata on the other RAID arrays. 2) XFS does not seem to have a way to detect whether file contents are still valid and consistent. It shares that with I think every other Linux filesystem instead BTRFS which uses checksumming for files. (Maybe NILFS as well, I don't know, and the FUSE or the other ZFS port). Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs