On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 23.04.12 08:18, Tim Connors wrote:
What a fragile filesystem! Do people actually trust their data to it? I've been running xfs for 2 months now. I had been running ext2/ext3/4 trouble free since they bloody well came out. Ext4 before ext4 was marked stable!
This may not be a fair question, Tim, but has XFS delivered on whatever promised attribute made you switch from ext[234]?
Was it faster at making hardlinks and other metadata changes like I thought it would? No, alas. That's why I have mounted the filesystem ro, and am currently rsyncing it across to something with a better proven track record. Hopefully it will finish rsyncing by mid-May! Incidentally, since xfs seems to insist that the smallest error in read-write mode (even though it appeared to be a read error rather than a write error) immediately aborts the filesystem (whereas ext4 gives me the option of errors={continue,remount-ro,panic}), is there a way to convince it not to error out the entire filesystem for a read-only mounted filesystem so I can carry on and retrieve most of it? I assume it will error out in readonly mode when it stumbles across that particular error in the B-tree. -- Tim Connors