FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-07-2009, 04:16 PM
"Brent L. Bates"
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

I guess I forgot to include that some of those Linux systems I've used
XFS on were 32 bit OS installs. However, lvm was not used on them, md & NFS
were, but not lvm.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-07-2009, 05:30 PM
Florin Andrei
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

John R Pierce wrote:
>
> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in RHEL
> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic loss
> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
> have you

I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that Ext4
is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The bias on
this list is surprising and unjustified.

FWIW, I was at SGI when XFS for Linux was released, and I probably was
among its first users. It was great back then, but now it's over-rated.

--
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-07-2009, 05:44 PM
Ian Forde
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>
wrote:

> John R Pierce wrote:
>>
>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>> RHEL
>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>> loss
>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>> have you
>
> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
> Ext4
> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
> bias on
> this list is surprising and unjustified.

Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
said experience unjustified.


> FWIW, I was at SGI when XFS for Linux was released, and I probably was
> among its first users. It was great back then, but now it's over-
> rated.
>
> --
> Florin Andrei
>
> http://florin.myip.org
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Florin Andrei wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in RHEL
>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic loss
>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>> have you
>
> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that Ext4
> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The bias on
> this list is surprising and unjustified.

Everyone on this list is somewhat accustomed to ignoring reports of bugs
that are known to be fixed in current versions. Is there some reason to
think that the current XFS on 64-bit Linux is more fragile or less well
tested than ext4?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-07-2009, 07:27 PM
Peter Kjellstrom
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

On Monday 07 December 2009, Florin Andrei wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
> > I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in RHEL
> > anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic loss
> > problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
> > have you
>
> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent)

I'm sorry for your losses. That said, we've run many servers (100+) using many
CentOS versions over the years and I don't know of one case of XFS caused
data loss. For us XFS has always performed well and "just worked".

Our initial reason for using XFS over EXT3 was write performance on certain
RAID-controllers but lately it's also about scalability (file system size).

> with XFS after power
> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that Ext4
> is on the rise),

I am looking forward to EXT4, but it is currently a tech. preview (compared to
XFS "proven for many years")...

Just my €0.02,
Peter

> but reliability was never its strong point. The bias on
> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>
> FWIW, I was at SGI when XFS for Linux was released, and I probably was
> among its first users. It was great back then, but now it's over-rated.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-08-2009, 02:46 AM
Christopher Chan
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Florin Andrei wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in RHEL
>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic loss
>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>> have you
>
> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that Ext4
> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The bias on
> this list is surprising and unjustified.


Yes. Used XFS for a mail queue and once lost 4000 emails thanks to XFS's
aggressive caching after a power loss before barriers were introduced.
However, XFS now supports barriers and so, so long as you do not use lvm
or you use hardware raid with a bbu cache and thus not needing to use
barriers, you are safe.

>
> FWIW, I was at SGI when XFS for Linux was released, and I probably was
> among its first users. It was great back then, but now it's over-rated.
>

For sure it is the most complicated filesystem in Linux with the largest
block code.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-08-2009, 02:49 AM
Christopher Chan
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Ian Forde wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>
> wrote:
>
>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>>> RHEL
>>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>>> loss
>>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>>> have you
>> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
>> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
>> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
>> Ext4
>> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
>> bias on
>> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>
> Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
> it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
> said experience unjustified.
>

The thing is that none of you ever stated how XFS was used. With
hardware raid or software raid or lvm or memory disk...

Anyway, data loss issues today should come down to not setting up
properly. Like disabling barriers on disks that have their write cache
enabled.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-08-2009, 09:08 AM
Timo Schoeler
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

thus Christopher Chan spake:
> Ian Forde wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>>>> RHEL
>>>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>>>> loss
>>>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>>>> have you
>>> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
>>> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
>>> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
>>> Ext4
>>> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
>>> bias on
>>> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>> Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
>> it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
>> said experience unjustified.
>>
>
> The thing is that none of you ever stated how XFS was used. With
> hardware raid or software raid or lvm or memory disk...

Speaking for me (on Linux systems) on top of LVM on top of md. On IRIX
as it was intended.

> Anyway, data loss issues today should come down to not setting up
> properly. Like disabling barriers on disks that have their write cache
> enabled.

That's exactly the point; maybe it is due to XFS coming from an
enterprise-class OS (IRIX) to the open source community. On IRIX, there
was a distinctive hardware platform on which IRIX and thusly XFS was run
on. When XFS was ported to GNU/Linux, it not only had to deal with
different LVM and RAID devices/mechanisms, but also with some hassles
when being deployed on 32bit environments, for which it just wasn't
designed.

So, to sum it up: IMHO it was surely in most cases not XFS's fault when
data loss occured, but more due to errors that were made when being
deployed (in GNU/Linux environments), be it 32bit issues, (missing)
barriering or whatever.

It'd be interesting to see some statistics on XFS issues on IRIX vs
GNU/Linux.

Regards,

Timo

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Tue Dec 8 12:30:01 2009
Return-path: <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:46:22 +0200
Received: from chlorine.canonical.com ([91.189.94.204]:36885)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>)
id 1NHweE-0005Oh-3I
for tom@linux-archive.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:46:22 +0200
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chlorine.canonical.com)
by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>)
id 1NHx0r-0001zm-Oj; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:09:45 +0000
Received: from mail2.ddt-consult.de ([88.198.36.7])
by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users@list-post.mks-mail.de>)
id 1NHx0l-0001zW-OZ
for ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:09:39 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail2.ddt-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2273400244
for <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:09:39 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail
Received: from mail2.ddt-consult.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail2.ddt-consult.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with LMTP id mNjiLfEMvSTQ for <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:09:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.42.106] (p579BF283.dip.t-dialin.net [87.155.242.131])
(Authenticated sender: mks@list-post.mks-mail.de)
by mail2.ddt-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C69840023B
for <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:09:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4B1E25E1.20001@list-post.mks-mail.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:09:37 +0100
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Markus_Sch=F6nhaber?=
<ubuntu-users@list-post.mks-mail.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de;
rv:1.9.1.7pre) Gecko/20091202 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Ubuntu 9.10 repeated dialogue: "Ubuntu is running in low-graphics
mode"
References: <a1138db30912060313jaf252b7tf4c35802bd70b55a@mail. gmail.com> <hfjtv1$9i8$1@ger.gmane.org> <4B1D955D.9060609@sbcglobal.net> <4B1DA92C.1060107@list-post.mks-mail.de>
<4B1DD093.4020009@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B1DD093.4020009@sbcglobal.net>
X-BeenThere: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
List-Id: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users.lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
<mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users>
List-Post: <mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Help: <mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
<mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com
Errors-To: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com

08.12.2009 05:05, Leonard Chatagnier:

> I agree you may have to change sources.list and I know it's not the =

> recommended/approved
> method. I only disagree that safe-upgrade wont do the same regarding =

> depends.

And that's not correct. 'safe-upgrade' and 'dist-upgrade' are different.
Only if 'safe-upgrade' will not keep back packages both will effectively
do the same.

> I just ran
> sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude safe-upgrade with these results:
[...]

On Karmic there is indeed no dependency conflict, so 'safe-upgrade'
won't keep back packages, so it will do the same as
'full-upgrade'/'dist-upgrade' *in this case*.

OTOH, on Hardy you'd see this:

~# LANG=3DC aptitude -s safe-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Building tag database... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
bind9-host dnsutils libbind9-30 libdns35 libisc35 libisccfg30
liblwres30 linux-image-server linux-server
The following packages will be upgraded:
libisccc30 linux-libc-dev
2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 9 not upgraded.
Need to get 733kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
Abort.

But...

~# LANG=3DC aptitude -s dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Building tag database... Done
The following NEW packages will be automatically installed:
libdns36
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libdns36 linux-image-2.6.24-26-server
linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24-26-server
The following packages will be upgraded:
bind9-host dnsutils libbind9-30 libdns35 libisc35 libisccc30
libisccfg30 liblwres30 linux-image-server linux-libc-dev linux-server
11 packages upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 25.3MB of archives. After unpacking 109MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
Abort.

> I haven't actually did the upgrade yet but do I not have what you say =

> that today's update to bind is such a case? AAMOF, I rarely use =

> dist-upgrade. I don't know
> all the facts about aptitude but are you implying that upgrade didn't =

> get the hits for you on the bind upgrade and if so did you try =

> safe-upgrade? Maybe safe-
> upgrade does what dist-upgrade is said
> to do.

No. Just look at aptitude's man page:

| safe-upgrade
| Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version.
| Installed packages will not be removed unless they are unused
| (see the section =93Managing Automatically Installed Packages=94
| in the aptitude reference manual). Packages which are not
| currently installed may be installed to resolve dependencies
| unless the --no-new-installs command-line option is supplied.
|
| It is sometimes necessary to remove one package in order to
| upgrade another; this command is not able to upgrade packages
| in such situations. Use the full-upgrade command to upgrade as
| many packages as possible.
|
| full-upgrade
| Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version,
| removing or installing packages as necessary. This command is
| less conservative than safe-upgrade and thus more likely to
| perform unwanted actions. However, it is capable of upgrading
| packages that safe-upgrade cannot upgrade.
|
| Note
| This command was originally named dist-upgrade for
| historical reasons, and aptitude still recognizes
| dist-upgrade as a synonym for full-upgrade.

-- =

Regards
mks


-- =

ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinf=
o/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Chan Chung Hang Christopher
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Timo Schoeler wrote:
> thus Christopher Chan spake:
>
>> Ian Forde wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>>>>> RHEL
>>>>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>>>>> loss
>>>>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>>>>> have you
>>>>>
>>>> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
>>>> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
>>>> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
>>>> Ext4
>>>> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
>>>> bias on
>>>> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>>>>
>>> Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
>>> it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
>>> said experience unjustified.
>>>
>>>
>> The thing is that none of you ever stated how XFS was used. With
>> hardware raid or software raid or lvm or memory disk...
>>
>
> Speaking for me (on Linux systems) on top of LVM on top of md. On IRIX
> as it was intended.
>
>

That is a disaster combination for XFS even now. You mentioned some
pretty hefty hardware in your other post...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-08-2009, 11:56 AM
Timo Schoeler
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

thus Chan Chung Hang Christopher spake:
> Timo Schoeler wrote:
>> thus Christopher Chan spake:
>>
>>> Ian Forde wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>>>>>> RHEL
>>>>>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>>>>>> loss
>>>>>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>>>>>> have you
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
>>>>> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
>>>>> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
>>>>> Ext4
>>>>> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
>>>>> bias on
>>>>> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>> Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
>>>> it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
>>>> said experience unjustified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The thing is that none of you ever stated how XFS was used. With
>>> hardware raid or software raid or lvm or memory disk...
>>>
>> Speaking for me (on Linux systems) on top of LVM on top of md. On IRIX
>> as it was intended.
>>
>>
>
> That is a disaster combination for XFS even now.

(Not company critical stuff -- just my 2nd workstation, the one to mess
around with; however, I didn't have problems yet -- what, of course,
should nobody invite do test it [on critical data]...!)

> You mentioned some
> pretty hefty hardware in your other post...

Which do you mean?

Timo
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org