Brian,
I agree with your approach here and would be willing to help (in my
little capacity) in creating this document for RH and others if they
are interested. Let me know what I can do.
Stewart
>
> 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
>
--
Stewart
-------------------------------------------------------------------
.-----.
/ \-_-/ \
/_-_\ /_-_\
----- -----
\-_-/ \-_-/
\ /_-_\ /
`-----'
Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute
------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Samuels Internet Address: ssamuels@xxxxxxx
Senior Systems Engineer Telephone : 609-252-5575
Macromolecular Modeling FAX : 609-252-6030
===================================================================
|