3 ms·
I am wondering what Google uses nowadays. Regarding Tso & co, I am not so optimistic. How they communicate on the mailing list is more like: "Look we wrote thi
by istvan__ 11y ago
I am wondering what Google uses nowadays.
Regarding Tso & co, I am not so optimistic. How they communicate on the mailing list is more like: "Look we wrote this, it runs on my laptop fine it might work for other workloads too".
There is no extensive test coverage run by against ext4 (at least I am not aware of it). This is not the first data loss bug in the ext4 codebase. Few years from now when enough users start to use it an get rid off these serious bugs from the code, I might even consider POCing it again.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIxNDQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIxNDQ
- simoncion 11y agoI'm somewhat certain that -despite the name- xfstests [0] is the canonical filesystem test suite these days. (At least, I've heard the btrfs devs concerned about passing its tests and adding new tests in it to check corner cases in btrfs. I also remember hearing the ext4 devs mention xfstest.) I read that mailing list tone as something more like "This software is offered without warranty and might shave your dog and weld your toilet seat down.". I mean, folks on the LKML talk in that manner about their patches, too. Also, even XFS has had severe data loss bugs in the distant past [1] and much more recently. [2] [0] http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfstests.git;a=summary http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfstests.gi... [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.15/+bug/37435 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.1... (Note in particular the last comment that describes this as "not a bug, but a feature!".) [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/45648 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/... (fixed in RHEL in 2013(!))