Posted Feb 9, 2012 7:39 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: Shared pain
Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?
Somehow you've forgotten about the most sane alternative:
Remove XFS from all the computers and use sane filesystems (extX, btrfs when it'll be more stable) exclusively.
In a battle between applications and filesystems applications win 10 times out of 10 because without applications filesystems are pointless (and applications are pointless without the user's data).
The whole discussion just highlights that XFS is categorically, absolutely, totally unsuitable for the use as general-purpose FS. And when you don't care about data integrity then ext4 without journalling is actually faster (see Google datacenters, for example).
True, but what you are asking for is for the spec to be changed, no matter how much it harms people who do follow the spec
application programmers and users who care about durability
Applications don't follow the spec. When they do they are punished and fixed. Thus users who care about durability need to use filesystems which work correctly given the existing applications.
Is it fair? No. It's classic vicious cycle. But said sycle is fact of the life. Ignore it at your peril.
I, for one, have a strict policy to never use XFS and to don't even consider bugs which can not be reproduced with other filesystems. Exactly because XFS developers think specs trump reality for some reason.
There is no filesystem that you can choose to use that will not loose data if the system crashes. If you are expecting something different, you need to change your expectation.
That's irrelevant. True, the loss of data in the case of system crash is unavoidable. I don't care if the window I've opened right before crash in Firefox is reopened or not. I understand that spinning rust is slow and can lose such info. But if the windows which were opened hour before that are lost because XFS replaced save state file with zeros then such filesystem is useless in practice. Long time ago XFS was prone to such data loss even if fsync was used and data was "saved" to disk days before crash. After a lot of work looks like XFS developers fixed this issue, but now they are stuck with the next step: atomic rename. It should be implemented for the FS to be suitable for real-world applications. There are even some hints that XFS have implemented it, but as long as XFS developer will exhibit this "specs are important, real applications don't" pathological thinking it's way too dangerous to even try to use XFS.
to post comments)