[ Disclaimer: I just cause flame wars at VA, and I don't speak for VA
The other real advantage for our customers is the fact that existing
ext2 partition can easily be converted to and from ext2. Right now
there are at least 4 jfs under linux in various states of developement.
If we chose one before things stablize. We might be left with the
choice later on down the road of having to stick /w an inferior
implementation, or telling customers. "You know how we told you to use
Tobias' WizBang fs. We'll you should really be using Jake's Greased
Weasel fs now. Ohh yeah, and you'll have reformat those 2TB array."
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Bryan J. Smith:
> > [Off-topic] As I said, VALinux seems to be squarely behind Ext3 for
> > kernel 2.2 ...
> > http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=461437
> [Disclaimer: I work for VA as kernel coordinator, but I don't speak
> for VA corporate.]
> Well, we aren't really "behind" ext3, any more than we're "behind" any
> other filesystem. We certainly did choose to use ext3 in our NAS
> product. But given that  NAS has to have rock-solid NFS service,
>  ext2 is the best-tested FS for NFS, and  ext3 is based on ext2,
> it seemed a natural choice.
I'm not 100% that is true now, but it certainly was with the initial
NAS product. Changing horses mid stream is generally a bad idea.
> NAS isn't our only product, and even NAS could conceivably switch to
> another filesystem, given cause.
The real issue is providing support for existing NAS customers.
Migration to a new fs is a real tricky issue.
> We will evaluate the other journaled
> filesystems as resources allow. I'd like to set up a four-way test --
> reiser, ext3, xfs, and jfs (IBM). I'd like to use each of them for
>  root,  /tmp,  other local usage, and  NFS export.
> Considering RAID and other factors, it won't be an easy test to do;
> don't hold your breath. :-(
> > Are they waiting on the Ext3 port to 2.4? Or are they waiting on
> > RedHat to adopt XFS? Or are they evaluating XFS now?
> We aren't neophiles ... at least, our managers aren't ... so we don't
> deploy stuff just because it exists. And if you check our kernel,
> you'll find that it's essentially based on SuSE's kernel, not Red
> Hat's. We'll deploy whatever will serve our customers best.
Solving people's computer problems always
requires more hardware be given to you.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Samuel J. Flory <sam@xxxxxxxxxxx>