Hello,
could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16?
There have been some bugs:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
and maybe there are more of them. I would like to stay on the 2.6.16
branch as I don't like to update my kernel several times a week. I just
want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
Thank you very much in advance
Yours
Manuel Reimer
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16?
> There have been some bugs:
>
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
These are the same problem. 2.6.16 is unaffected.
> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
For XFS, its goodness. 2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.
cheers.
--
Nathan
Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16?
>> There have been some bugs:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
>>
>
> These are the same problem. 2.6.16 is unaffected.
>
>
>> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
>>
>
> For XFS, its goodness. 2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.
>
> cheers.
>
>
If you have run 2.6.17 to 2.6.17.6 or early 2.6.18-rc? however; please
run a xfs_repair v.2.6.10; because the corruption may/will have already
taken place and a silent time bomb may be waiting. Three machines
already died with symptom of the corruption on kernels that no longer
have the problem.
--
Jeffrey Hundstad
Nathan Scott schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16?
>> There have been some bugs:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
>
> These are the same problem. 2.6.16 is unaffected.
But the bug has been filed for 2.6.16.4.
Did you want to say, that the latest 2.6.16 is unaffected?
>> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
>
> For XFS, its goodness. 2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.
What exactly did you want to tell with this sentence. Sorry, but my
native language is german...
Is it a good solution to stay on the 2.6.16 branch? Of course I could
use 2.6.17 or 2.6.18 but I want to update the kernel as infrequent as
possible. After 2.6.18 there will be 2.6.19 and 2.6.20. If I continue
that way, then I'll have more downtime than uptime.
Thank you very much in advance
Yours
Manuel
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:34:10AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> Nathan Scott schrieb:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16?
> >> There have been some bugs:
> >>
> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757
> >
> > These are the same problem. 2.6.16 is unaffected.
>
> But the bug has been filed for 2.6.16.4.
Indeed, once the corruption exists ondisk all kernels will detect it.
Read through the entire bug, many details come toward the end.
> Did you want to say, that the latest 2.6.16 is unaffected?
All 2.6.16's are unaffected.
> >> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs.
> >
> > For XFS, its goodness. 2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+.
>
> What exactly did you want to tell with this sentence. Sorry, but my
> native language is german...
Sorry, I meant to say "theres nothing wrong with 2.6.16".
> Is it a good solution to stay on the 2.6.16 branch? Of course I could
Yes, thats fine.
cheers.
--
Nathan