Re: XFS at all? AND XFS and gcc ?!

[Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 23:31 17-6-2001 +0200, Knuth Posern wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Thanks for your fast and long answer!
>
> > not suffered data as of yet. (knock on wood). I have no expierence about
> > XFS over Raid5. I have the number of disks for it but unfortunately not
>
> Did you hear something about XFS over Software-RAID5?

I ment XFS over software Raid5. Hardware raid practically always works 
unless the hardware raid driver is broken.

> > YMMV when using it.
>
> YMMV?

Sorry for the slang, Your mileage may vary

> > The only problems with md is running in degraded mode. But it does work.
>
> md is one of the XFS-utils? - I didn't look at them yet...

It's not, md is the kernel driver. When your raid misses one disk it will 
run in degraded mode. This when XFS will perform worse. When you replace 
the disk the resyncing was not always op to speed.

> > It is on the FTP site. ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/patches/
> > The cvs tree is currently at 2.4.6-pre3.
>
> Is it o.k. to use the 2.4.3-version at the moment (because in the Readme
> on the server it said: ... 2.4.3 is not so heavily tested) - or should I
> use always the newest XFS-patch for the actual kernel (which would be
> 2.4.5 with something as linux-2.4.5-xfs-06112001.patch.bz2 at the moment).

This readme was made when 1.0 was released. You should pick up the latest 
XFS patch. There are numerous fixes on the linux kernel front which also 
make XFS behave better.

> Are the newest patches in CVS or on the ftp-server?

The patches on the FTP site have the same fixes as the ones that are 
commited to CVS.
The CVS tree however also tracks Linus -pre versions. But the patches are 
provided for people that don't want to run -pre kernels.

> > Most people reported succes with 2.95.3+ and there have been some fixes
> > for the tree for compiling with newer kernels.
>
> Hmmm. 2.95.3+ does it mean 2.95.3 or higher or is it the name of this
> gcc-version?

or higher. Make sure you use 2.4.5 or later since that contains the patches.

> > Try compiling the tree first with your native compiler and see what
> > happens.
>
> But the problems reported on the mailing-list with the gcc 2.95 occured
> afterwards (while using XFS), or?

The problems with 2.95 were hanging processes. I believe this also occured 
on normal kernels.
That is the only problem with 2.95 I know of.

Bye
--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.