[owenmarshall]

8 years ago would make you an extremely early adopter of the Linux port. XFS has seen significant development since then. I don't think experiences based on eight year old software hold much water.

XFS has adopted some nasty stigma of being a filesystem that eats your data. But it seems that for every user that complains about data loss, another does not.

[Terretta]

> But it seems that for every user that complains about data loss, another does not.

So, a coin toss then? You're not helping!

[owenmarshall]

No, we need a careful investigation of the filesystem.

Listening to my "works fine" comment is as useless as any other "didn't work for me" comment.

What might be helpful is a comment saying "I encountered the following issues with the following configuration, reported the bug, and the maintainers said ..." What would be even better would be for actual experts to audit the code, look through the bug reports, and give their opinions.

But "works for me"/"broke for me" comments are, unfortunately, as useless as most filesystem benchmarks. Indeed, any time filesystem discussions come up, a stunning majority of the opinions are unhelpful. Unfortunately, I jumped right in with one as well :(

[andrewvc]

Agreed, I was using XFS aggressively on ~20 servers with wildly varying IO loads 4-5 years ago and it was rock solid.

[RexRollman]

My experience with XFS and Arch Linux is that it is rock solid.

[cbsmith]

That sad part is that a lot of what was perceived as data loss from XFS was actually due to bugs in apps & the kernel that XFS exposed. These same issues would show up with ext4 & btrfs, but XFS has already flushed them out so they've been fixed.

[jonhohle]

I was using XFS on a production web/ftp server (RedHat 7.x with XFS patches) in or around 2001. The port was done in 2000. I don't think a 4 year old port of a 10 year old file system is that extreme. That said, I've been using ZFS in FreeBSD since FreeBSD 7.