On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Valery Mitsyn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Paul Robert Marino <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for JFS its been a long time since I tested it but I had the reverse
>>> issue.
>>> Oh and I know the issue you ran into with xfs its rare but has been known
>>> to
>>> happen I've hit it once my self on a laptop its a journal problem, and
>>> fsck
>>> isn't the tool to use.
>>> There is a specific xfs repair tool to fix the journal or can rebuild it
>>> from the backup inodes
>>
>>
>> Then are you agreed that it's too likely to occur for high reliability
>> filesystems, and only more suitable for high flowthrough data whose
>> provenance is not so critical?
>>
>
> Certainly not!
> Here at JINR we have more than 50 servers with about 2PB
> used space serviced by XFS. All data are critical for
> LHC experiments. Quite a few servers run for about a 5 years
> till now. Just a few files were lost due to damn 3-ware
> destroyed own DCB.
> The latest incident with xfs+nfs is not the xfs problem too.

That's precisely why I ask. My xfs experience is apparently out of
date, compared to your more recent experience.