xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - add kgcc line for RH 7.0

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TAKE - add kgcc line for RH 7.0
From: kris buggenhout <gast6@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:10:39 +0200
References: <200010022143.e92LhPH00355@gibble.americas.sgi.com> <20001003141140.A25453@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <news2mail-8rcva2$m81$2@mate.bln.innominate.de>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Graichen wrote:

>
>
> > Could you please put somewhere into the XFS Beta module something like
>
> > #if __GNUC__==2 && __GNUC_MINOR__==95
> > #error "does not compile properly with gcc 2.95. get egcs 1.1."
> > #endif
>
> > This should save the users of distributions which come with
> > 2.95 by default (SuSE, newer Debian, probably others) some grief and you
> > many bug reports. Not all the world is RedHat.

I wonder what the problem is ...
# gcc --version
 2.95.2

And I have built all versions since the first oss release of XFS... ?
I havent met any problems ... doing just an XFS compile...
I believe the issues are more concerning kdb and the likes... I know decent
debugging cant be done without it ...
As I am no programmer... my contribution is only valid for performance and
stability testing.

But XFS compiles fine ... and works stable...
I got at home recently remade a Linux using the most recent Mandrake dist,
with a few minor problems (needed to update some stuff like modutils, rpm and
e2fsprog-dev ...)  and built successfully the tree that was current last
friday...

Here at work I do a build every day after updating with cvs... with
gcc-2.95.2... and have no issuess whatsoever...

so I would advise people to use the correct gcc if they really want to test
and help debug the XFS code ... but to give it  a spin to see what its
worth... any gcc should do if its a bit recent...



greetings... and keep up the good work

p.s. I have a DELL poweredge server with hardware raid controller ... it has
a data partition with XFS and on it sits an Oracle DB... it hasnt had any
trouble since 1-1,5 months only upgrading the version when the test build
works and proves to be stable under a few disktest runs...
Performance is not better than ext2 but rebooting after failure is a dream
... I have simulated lock-ups, power faillures ... the 50GByte partition
would take +30 minutes to fsck on ext2, with XFS it is mere seconds to be up
and running again.
(but I believe we should see a performance increase when the tree will move
to test9 or higher)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>