[Dovecot] Best filesystem?

[Stan Hoeppner]

Nick Edwards put forth on 1/29/2011 7:14 PM:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com>wrote:
> 
>> Nick Edwards put forth on 1/28/2011 9:47 PM:
>>
>>> xfs is not very nice to you if you lose power, it's not as bad as it used
>> to
>>> be, but it still gives you 0 byte files, so make sure you have a good UPS
>> to
>>> issue a safe shutdown of the server, if you do, xfs is better, using
>> CentOS.

>> It would be nice if you spoke from experience or documentation instead of
>> rumor.

> I do speak from experience, it is also a /very/ well known fact, for someone
> who rants on and on and on with self justification, you sure don't actually
> know a lot do you.

It's interesting that you cut the "fact" out of my reply, then proceeded to rant
against me personally, instead of discussing the subject at hand.  Here, I'll
add the XFS power loss fact back in, as that is the subject of this thread
currently:  From: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ

"Q: Why do I see binary NULLS in some files after recovery when I unplugged the
power?

Update: This issue has been addressed with a CVS fix on the 29th March 2007 and
merged into mainline on 8th May 2007 for 2.6.22-rc1..."


That proves you factually incorrect.  Now, if you were using XFS prior to May
2007, or using an antique kernel in a Linux ditsro (RHEL/CentOS) that shipped
well after that date but without the patches, I can see how you might have had
issues.  Patching systems is not the responsibility of the devs however.  If you
were running un-patched systems after May 2007, that's not the fault of XFS.

Given the problem you describe was fixed almost 4 years ago, do you feel it's
proper to continue to denigrate XFS today, spreading FUD 4 years after the issue
was resolved?

Also, I didn't quote anything from Wikipedia.  It seems you have confused the
XFS FAQ website with Wikipedia simply because it uses Wiki software and thus has
the same look/feel as Wikipedia.  Are you saying that one can't trust the
content on any site running Wiki software because it simply "looks like" Wikipedia?

-- 
Stan