| |||||||||||||
Please, stop...Please, stop...Posted Dec 20, 2008 3:31 UTC (Sat) by sandeen (guest, #42852)In reply to: File checksums needed? by daniel Parent article: Tux3: the other next-generation filesystem
Can we just drop the whole "XFS expects and/or works around special hardware" meme? This has been kicked around for years without a shred of evidence. I may as well assert that XFS requires death-rays from mars for proper functionality.
XFS, like any journaling filesystem, expects that when the storage says data is safe on disk, it is safe on disk and the filesystem can proceed with whatever comes next. That's it; no special capacitors, no power-fail interrupts, no death-rays from mars. There is no special-ness required (unless you consider barriers to prevent re-ordering to be special, and xfs is not unique in that respect either).
(Log in to post comments)
Please, stop... Posted Dec 20, 2008 3:55 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] You must have seriously misread the post to which you responded. It doesn't mention special features of hardware. It does mention special flaws in hardware and how XFS works in spite of them.I too remember reports that in testing, systems running early versions of XFS didn't work because XFS assumed, like pretty much everyone else, that the hardware would not write garbage to the disk and subsequently read it back with no error indication. The testing showed that real world hardware does in fact do that and, supposedly, XFS developers improved XFS so it could maintain data integrity in spite of it.
|
|||||||||||||