xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS/Linux 1.1??

To: Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS/Linux 1.1??
From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:41:45 -0400
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Sean Elble <s_elble@xxxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: SmithConcepts, Inc.
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106092236180.2560-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> I agree.  It's frustrating.  I have RH7.1 on my K7.  Out of
> the box, I can pick ext2 (ick) or reiser (ickier).  Along
> with some stability problems I've heard about (in re
> reiserfs),

Well, I'm not going to touch the ReiserFS argument on "stablity,"
because that differs from user to user.  But what I _can_ tell you
is that many of us rely on production NFS networks -- and test after
test, year after year, ReiserFS just takes issue with non-Linux
clients (as well as some Linux clients).  Chalk it up to the
non-traditional UFS design.

*SO*, regardless of any "design superiority" that the "ReiserFS
absolutists" like to talk about, some of us *NEED* a traditional
UNIX filesystem (UFS) design like XFS.  At the same time, the
features of XFS aren't too shabby either!

> it annoys me that there is no dump/restore functionality for
> that fs (an no immediate plans).

Again, it's the traditional UFS focus again.  I wish Reiser and his
team on building the _future_ in filesystem design, and look forward
to the day ReiserFS does all we want.  And I will admit it's great
for standalone systems or non-file server appliances *TODAY*.  *BUT*
it's not going on my fileservers.  I need dump, I need 100% kNFSd
compatibility, etc...

> XFS is a PITA for me, since I run win98 under win4lin (unlike
> vmware, who can run as a pure module architecture, win4lin
> requires several thousand lines of patches).  Getting the XFS
> patches to co-exist with the win4lin patches has not been
> pleasant.

If my Windows app won't run under WINE, I don't need it.  Plus I've
really moved to open document formats (e.g., LaTeX, SGML, XML,
etc...).

> Amen!

Seriously.  I had 0 issues with pre-0.0.3 releases of Ext3 -- which
were all full-data journaling.  Then when running 0.0.6, I found out
"meta-data" journaling was the default.  Worse yet, using the
"data=journal" option to supposedly "force" it into full-data
journaling still did (and, in many cases, does) NOT.  Pisses me
off.  I'm not going Ext3 for "performance," I'm going for
"reliability."  So I don't care if my performance is only cut to 75%
instead of 50% -- give me only 50% if it works flawlessly!

Now they've released 0.0.7a.  I thought 0.0.6b fixed everything for
meta and only the 2.4 port was being worked on.  Ack, I'll just
stick with my tried and true 0.0.2f installs!

-- TheBS

-- 
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx   chat:thebs413
SmithConcepts, Inc.           http://www.SmithConcepts.com
==========================================================
Linux 'Worms' exploit known security holes that were fixed
3-12 months earlier.  NT/2000 'Worms' exploit unknown se-
curity holes that won't be fixed for another 3-12 months.

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