Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 | From | Felipe Alfaro Solana <> | Date | Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:07:16 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 11:13, Olaf Frączyk wrote: > > > Recoverability matters to me. The driver could be 10 megabyte and > > > *I* would not care. XFS seems to stand no matter how rudely the OS > > > is knocked down.
> > But XFS easily breaks down due to media defects. Once ago I used XFS, > > but I lost all data on one of my volumes due to a bad block on my hard > > disk. XFS was unable to recover from the error, and the XFS recovery > > tools were unable to deal with the error.
> You lost all data? Or you just had to restore them from backup? If you > didn't have a backup it is your fault not XFS one :)
Well, it was a testing machine with no important data, so I could just afford to lose everything, as it was the case.
> But even if you had no backup, why didn't you move your data (using dd > or something else) to another (without defects) drive, and run recovery > on new drive?
I tried, but it proved more difficult than expected, since the computer was a laptop and I couldn't move the HDD to another computer. Using the distro rescue CD was useless as it's kernel didn't have XFS support. All in all, XFS recovery was a nightmare compared to ext3 recovery, for example.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |