While this is true, it also may dramatically lower the mean time to
failure for your disk, due to increased ware and tear - consumer ATA
drives are designed to operate with the write cache on.
If you cannot afford to lose data due to poweroff corruption, then the
only viable solution is a RAID ca
Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote:
Daniels advice is actually the best that you can get. It will give
you the smallest chance of corruption due out of order journal commits
that caching can cause.
While this is true, it also may dramatically lower the mean time to
failure for your disk, due to increa
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 21:45, Ryan Tandy wrote:
> I think that's what Daniel intended. If you were *really* paranoid
> about power outages, you could do that AND mount your FS with -o
> sync...
Ah ok, my misunderstanding then. Thank you!
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 18:50, Daniel Iliev wrote:
> Then I would propose you to use "hdparm -W0 /dev/(what-ever)" to
> disable the write caching (no matter which FS you use). Nothing can
> give 100% guarantee against power failure.
This disables only hard disk cache. If I understand correctly
Daniels advice is actually the best that you can get. It will give
you the smallest chance of corruption due out of order journal commits
that caching can cause.
js
On 10/31/06, Daniel Iliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 11:04, Uwe Thiem wrote:
>
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 11:04, Uwe Thiem wrote:
>
>> On 31 October 2006 09:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> I find it useful to keep in mind that XFS is a file-system (i.e. a
>>> system for files), and not necessarily a severly disk-bound
>>> filesystem
>>>
>
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 11:04, Uwe Thiem wrote:
> On 31 October 2006 09:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I find it useful to keep in mind that XFS is a file-system (i.e. a
> > system for files), and not necessarily a severly disk-bound
> > filesystem
>
> Would you mind to elaborate on this? I simply
On 31 October 2006 09:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I find it useful to keep in mind that XFS is a file-system (i.e. a
> system for files), and not necessarily a severly disk-bound filesystem
Would you mind to elaborate on this? I simply do not get your point.
Uwe
--
Mark Twain: I rather decline
On Monday 30 October 2006 22:49, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
> If you are so concerned with the awesomeness of XFS's caching... why
> not turn on data-journaling? Then data (not just meta-data) is
> committed to the journal.
>
> You can also tune XFS to not wait so long to hold cached data.
It's not so
On 10/30/06, Bryan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After sending this I realized that XFS doesn't support journal=data... I
thought journal=data was a general VFS part of the linux kernel... my
bad. :)
I guess you are just left with in kernel tuning (someone previously
posted a link to).
After sending this I realized that XFS doesn't support journal=data... I
thought journal=data was a general VFS part of the linux kernel... my
bad. :)
I guess you are just left with in kernel tuning (someone previously
posted a link to).
Bryan Whitehead wrote:
If you are so concerned with th
If you are so concerned with the awesomeness of XFS's caching... why not
turn on data-journaling? Then data (not just meta-data) is committed to
the journal.
You can also tune XFS to not wait so long to hold cached data.
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote:
On Monday 30 October 2006 12:04, Uwe Thiem wrote:
> On 28 October 2006 23:39, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote:
> > > Dale ha scritto:
> > > > If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not
> > > > like power failures at all. I have had to reinst
On 28 October 2006 23:39, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote:
> > Dale ha scritto:
> > > If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like
> > > power failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig
> > > because of this very problem. If
On Saturday 28 October 2006 19:51, Dale wrote:
> I'm thinking you could make the capacitors on the high voltage side
> MUCH larger so it would last longer. It would still have to be a
> fast shutdown though. Something like shutdown -h -t -5 minutes ago.
> LOL The only thing about that is chargi
On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote:
> Dale ha scritto:
> > If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like
> > power failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig
> > because of this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK.
>
> Thanks a lot for the
Yeah, I will try JFS again some day. Not today, but someday. XFS
slow deletion is my personal pet peeve. I have been using XFS for so
long, so successfully, that I am hesitant to change. Plus, I have a
large number of existing installs.
Last year, I setup a JFS system on a dual-opteron. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote:
> That's not true. Up to 2.6.17.5 it /may/ eat your data. I ran
> 2.6.17, in the buggy state, for >2 weeks before I upgraded. It did
> _not_ eat my data. Don't get me wrong - it was lucky, and yes - it's
> a heinous bu
Novensiles divi Flamen wrote:
> On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:03, Chris Walters wrote:
> > Nuclear Reactor UPS
> > The good side, you can go a LONG time on UPS, and you can run your whole
> > house off from it...
> > The bad side, you have to pay to build the reactor and to dispose of the
> > waste
On 10/29/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:56, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > > On Saturday 28 October 2006 13:31, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > >> I'd recommend cha
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:56, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > > On Saturday 28 October 2006 13:31, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > >> I'd recommend changing to ext3 or xfs, as I've found both to be solid
> > >> (I p
Dude - I use xfs w/o a UPS for desktops and laptops. I use it on
servers with RAID and with UPS protection. I also keep good backups
for the servers. I have been using XFS since _just_ _after_ it came
to Linux. I have used XFS on several hundred systems (which I have
been responsible for).
On Sunday 29 October 2006 15:19, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 October 2006 02:33, Richard Fish wrote:
> > > Hmm, looks like "man mount" hasn't kept pace with the kernel.
> > > Apologies.
> >
> > yeah, that is a big problem. The data=journal option is AFAI
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Sunday 29 October 2006 02:33, Richard Fish wrote:
> > Hmm, looks like "man mount" hasn't kept pace with the kernel.
> > Apologies.
>
> yeah, that is a big problem. The data=journal option is AFAIR two
> years old.
>
> The manpages are pretty... out of sync.
This
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:03, Chris Walters wrote:
>
> Nuclear Reactor UPS
> The good side, you can go a LONG time on UPS, and you can run your whole
> house off from it...
> The bad side, you have to pay to build the reactor and to dispose of the
> waste (very expensive)...
Too complex. Just g
On 10/29/06, William Kenworthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 20:25 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:14:06 -0500, Joe Menola wrote:
>
> > > > And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
> > >
> > > Unless you're using a laptop.
> >
> > Solar UPS?
>
> Batter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Joe Menola wrote:
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 2:02 pm, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
>> Unless you're using a laptop.
>
> Solar UPS?
Nuclear Reactor UPS
The good side, you can go a LONG time on UPS, and yo
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 20:25 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:14:06 -0500, Joe Menola wrote:
>
> > > > And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
> > >
> > > Unless you're using a laptop.
> >
> > Solar UPS?
>
> Battery!
>
actually laptops are worse - on mine laptop-mod
On Sunday 29 October 2006 02:33, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 October 2006 01:45, Richard Fish wrote:
> > > On 10/28/06, CapSel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1. reiserfs breaks down on power failures even with option
> >
On 10/28/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 01:45, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 10/28/06, CapSel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. reiserfs breaks down on power failures even with option data=journal
> > or sync
>
> Huh, reiserfs doesn't do this. It only l
On 10/28/06, fire-eyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure about the journaling, but the trick is that it caches
writes very aggressively -- we're talking dozens of MB at a time, and it
often holds onto those writes for not just minutes but even hours.
Just want to point out that XFS offers
On Sunday 29 October 2006 01:45, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 10/28/06, CapSel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. reiserfs breaks down on power failures even with option data=journal
> > or sync
>
> Huh, reiserfs doesn't do this. It only logs metadata updates.
nope, it can log data too.
--
gentoo-use
On 10/28/06, CapSel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. reiserfs breaks down on power failures even with option data=journal or
sync
Huh, reiserfs doesn't do this. It only logs metadata updates.
1. Is there the file system that preserves data & metadata like UFS2
"solid as rock!"
ext3 mount
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 13:31, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I'd recommend changing to ext3 or xfs, as I've found both to be solid (I
prefer xfs but that just my personal opinion).
if you use XFS don't use 2.6.17 kernels.
...
A good link that briefly discusses power
On Saturday 28 October 2006 19:33, CapSel wrote:
> I use reiserfs (version 3.x, if correctly recall 3.6), haven't even touched
> reiser4(resierfs 4.X).
>
ah, ok. From your post it sounded like you were using 4.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:14:06 -0500, Joe Menola wrote:
> > > And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
> >
> > Unless you're using a laptop.
>
> Solar UPS?
Battery!
--
Neil Bothwick
"Bother," said Pooh, as someone flamed him for no reason.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 28 October 2006 2:02 pm, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
>
> Unless you're using a laptop.
Solar UPS?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:21:25 -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
Unless you're using a laptop.
--
Neil Bothwick
Approx. 1 in 36000 people will break a leg within 3 weeks of reading this
post
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Statux wrote:
This becomes a philosophical question but, shouldn't computers (hw and
sw) be thought to resist hard power outages as much as possible?
If UPS systems are the only feasible way to obtain it, why no one
thought to somehow include them inside desktop systems?
I'
I use reiserfs (version 3.x, if correctly recall 3.6), haven't even touched reiser4(resierfs 4.X).On 10/28/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Saturday 28 October 2006 19:16, CapSel wrote:
> I wrote five because I started to count 5 times ago. My RAM is in good> condition :) Pro
On Saturday 28 October 2006 19:16, CapSel wrote:
> I wrote five because I started to count 5 times ago. My RAM is in good
> condition :) Problem with reiserfs (reiser4 is used across the net to
> specify version 4.X IMHO)
so you are using reiser4?
You know that is not even in a stable kernel and
On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:38, b.n. wrote:
> What about JFS?
it is known to be pretty robust and you will have a hard time to find
any 'horror stories' - but one reason for the lack of horror stories: there
aren't many users.
And it is very slow.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> This becomes a philosophical question but, shouldn't computers (hw and
> sw) be thought to resist hard power outages as much as possible?
> If UPS systems are the only feasible way to obtain it, why no one
> thought to somehow include them inside desktop systems?
I'm sure that they're out the
fire-eyes ha scritto:
Norberto Bensa wrote:
b.n. wrote:
Yes, but it costs money :)
Not that much really if you think how much it will save :)
You don't need a keep-my-box-up-30-days UPS. A 15 minutes UPS will do just
fine and they are very cheap nowdays.
Last time I checked they were in th
Norberto Bensa wrote:
> b.n. wrote:
>> Yes, but it costs money :)
>
> Not that much really if you think how much it will save :)
>
> You don't need a keep-my-box-up-30-days UPS. A 15 minutes UPS will do just
> fine and they are very cheap nowdays.
Another nice note is that APC and probably othe
b.n. wrote:
> Yes, but it costs money :)
Not that much really if you think how much it will save :)
You don't need a keep-my-box-up-30-days UPS. A 15 minutes UPS will do just
fine and they are very cheap nowdays.
Regards,
Norberto
pgpovI7u8HIQu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Norberto Bensa wrote:
> CapSel wrote:
>> So my question is - how can I help to eliminate this bug(s)?
>
> Can you check your RAM please? Reiserfs (3.x that is) is very stable. I'm
> using it for five years now. No data loss or corruption.
>
> And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
Strong
I don't know why I just know that I used Reiserfs after that and it
worked fine, even after power failures, lots of them too.
Yes, that's one of the reasons I like it.
That said, nothing is perfect. A UPS is a good idea even if it can only
last long enough for a proper shutdown.
Yes, but it
Hemmann, Volker Armin ha scritto:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote:
Dale ha scritto:
If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like power
failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig because of
this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK.
CapSel wrote:
> So my question is - how can I help to eliminate this bug(s)?
Can you check your RAM please? Reiserfs (3.x that is) is very stable. I'm
using it for five years now. No data loss or corruption.
And DON'T use XFS if you can't afford an UPS.
Regards,
Norberto
pgpUxWR1oDYh9.pgp
De
On Saturday 28 October 2006 14:16, Novensiles divi Flamen wrote:
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:40, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > if you use ext3 don't use 2.6.18 kernels.
>
> Is there a specific problem with ext3 and 2.6.18 kernels? I haven't heard
> anything yet, but if there is a prob it's
b.n. wrote:
> Dale ha scritto:
>
>> If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like power
>> failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig because of
>> this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK.
>
> Thanks a lot for the advice. Power outages do happen and
On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote:
> Dale ha scritto:
> > If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like power
> > failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig because of
> > this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK.
>
> Thanks a lot for the
Dale ha scritto:
If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like power
failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig because of
this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK.
Thanks a lot for the advice. Power outages do happen and I don't have an
UPS. W
On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:40, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>
> if you use ext3 don't use 2.6.18 kernels.
>
Is there a specific problem with ext3 and 2.6.18 kernels? I haven't heard
anything yet, but if there is a prob it's likely to bite me very soon...
references?
- Noven
--
>-- Novensile
On Saturday 28 October 2006 13:31, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
> I'd recommend changing to ext3 or xfs, as I've found both to be solid (I
> prefer xfs but that just my personal opinion).
if you use XFS don't use 2.6.17 kernels.
if you use ext3 don't use 2.6.18 kernels.
...
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Dale wrote:
If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like power
failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig because of
this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK.
Interesting - I'm running an xfs system that has been through several
power failur
CapSel wrote:
It's now more than five times when reiserfs has "sucked my data into
/dev/null". At the begining I thout that was a hardware problem -
disk, ram... but now I am almost 100% sure that reiserfs IS NOT stable
file system. It doesn't matter if I have gentoo-sources or
hardened-sources,
b.n. wrote:
> CapSel ha scritto:
>> It's now more than five times when reiserfs has "sucked my data into
>> /dev/null". At the begining I thout that was a hardware problem -
>> disk, ram... but now I am almost 100% sure that reiserfs IS NOT stable
>> file system. It doesn't matter if I have gentoo-
On 28 October 2006 12:16, CapSel wrote:
> It's now more than five times when reiserfs has "sucked my data into
> /dev/null". At the begining I thout that was a hardware problem -
> disk, ram... but now I am almost 100% sure that reiserfs IS NOT stable
> file system. It doesn't matter if I have gent
CapSel ha scritto:
It's now more than five times when reiserfs has "sucked my data into
/dev/null". At the begining I thout that was a hardware problem -
disk, ram... but now I am almost 100% sure that reiserfs IS NOT stable
file system. It doesn't matter if I have gentoo-sources or
hardened-sour
It's now more than five times when reiserfs has "sucked my data into
/dev/null". At the begining I thout that was a hardware problem -
disk, ram... but now I am almost 100% sure that reiserfs IS NOT stable
file system. It doesn't matter if I have gentoo-sources or
hardened-sources, if I compile fo
62 matches
Mail list logo
