I was thinking of any chance of stability, with regard to the file system,
itself.
Having just lived through an ext2 meltdown on my primary server (I'm
still picking up the pieces), I'm speaking from experience.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Stephen Adler wrote:
> >
> > And to Stephen, I would add that, from what I've been reading, XFS isn't
> > necessarily considered "ready for prime time" (someone on the development
> > team correct me me if my inference is incorrect). Having said that, I
> > think it would probably be best to hve the development team be 100%
> > confident that they've got everything worked out, before it is submitted
> > to the kernel development team for inclusion in the "official" kernel.
> >
>
> I disagree, may new features which make it into the kernel are not 100%
> ready for prime. As a matter of fact, the only way you can make
> something
> 100% ready from prime is to get everyone to use it on the internet and
> then
> you will find all the bugs. I think reiserfs is a very good example. its
> in the official kernel tree even though there are known corruptability
> issues.
> Redhat then puts it into rawhide to let us bleeding edgers kick its
> tires
> by building large file systems with it. Once a piece of software reaches
> a pleateau of stability within the developers circles, you have to let
> it out for the rest of us to use. As from what I read on the mailing
> lists,
> xfs has reached a stability pleateau on par with reiserfs and thus
> should
> be let into the kernel tree.
>
> OK, off my soap box.
>
> Steve.
>
|