It remains the only filesystem that I couldn't at least partially recover.
For a good mix of speed, reliability and huge data capacity on Linux, I stick to ReiserFS, at least until btrfs becomes more stable.
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.
So, a coin toss then? You're not helping!
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 :(
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_problem_with...
In summary: XFS used to default to having write-barriers disabled (for performance), which makes it prone to data-loss during power outages. This default has changed nowadays, but you must still review your controller-/disk-cache settings to ensure stuff is really flushed to disk when XFS thinks it is.
I'd think again before using XFS on my desktop.
(I've had power failures on quite a few other occasions, with all sorts of other filesystems. I did lost the occasional file, but at least I could still boot those systems..)