xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Installation of xfs in RH 7.1 Yes, share them with RedHat!

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Installation of xfs in RH 7.1 Yes, share them with RedHat!
From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:01:09 -0400
Cc: Stewart Samuels <ssamuels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, thebs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: (personal/non-Theseus-related/liable)
References: <200104181334.JAA13489@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3ADDB13C.26E25CAE@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx, thebs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Red Hat is well aware of what we are doing, and the source is available
> under the GPL to anyone who wants to use it.

Agreed.  But I think it is about time that RedHat starts talking
about their JFS efforts -- I haven't seen any other than their
limited Ext3 beta while back.  Now someone on SourceForce-NFS hit me
up off-list and mentioned that RedHat is working hard on getting
some 2.4 issues straightened out for Ext3, so I can only assume they
are taking an Ext3-only approach.

> Technical, in the sense that Red Hat has stated in various forums that
> stability trumps all when deciding what to include in their
> distribution, and frankly, XFS wasn't quite there when they were
> preparing for 7.1.

I'd be interested in some URLs if you've got them.  I've seen some
of the ReiserFS discussion now.  As a sysadmin of a project NFS
network, ReiserFS has always been an issue (since I first tested it
in March of 2000 on an NFS server), and I assume RedHat sees it the
same way I do.

> In all this talk of petitions, it's important to not take an adversarial
> stance.  Red Hat has entirely valid reasons for only supporting ext2
> installs in Red Hat Linux 7.1.

Despite the lack of being a JFS, over 6 years of Ext2 usage has
resulted in 0 data loss by this sysadmin.  It also fragments less
and full fsck's faster than most other UFS' in my experience.  And
NTFS is no comparsion (I've had 2 journal mis-reads that resulted in 

Hence why I *DO* like Ext3, because it is still Ext2 underneath. 
But for features and capabilities, XFS is obviously the future,
mission-critical JFS for servers and workstations -- with ReiserFS
probably being favored for non-networked desktops and home users
(i.e. wherever NFS is not used).

> If you let them know, politely, that there is interest in having
> journaling filesystem support in their next release, that would probably
> be a good thing.  When XFS is both stable & tested, and when enough
> users want it, I have little doubt that Red Hat will include it in their
> distribution.

Agreed.  If no one else does, I'll write a very polite and
thoughtful piece on why RedHat should take an interest in making XFS
a JFS option in RedHat 7.2.  I will be sure to comment on how Ext3
does work wonderfully for 2.2 systems and I do anticipate its
release for 2.4, but XFS is obviously the JFS for the future of
mission critical NFS file servers and workstations.

-- TheBS

P.S.  In case you'all missed it before, I did a little presentation
on JFS' at my LUG back in March:
http://smithconcepts.com/files/presentations/ELUG_JFS_2001Mar05a.pdf

--
Bryan "TheBS" Smith          chat:thebs413 @AOL/MSN/Yahoo
Engineer      mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx,thebs@xxxxxxxxxxx
*********************************************************
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
                                    -- Nicholas C. Weaver

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>