xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS/Linux 1.1??

To: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS/Linux 1.1??
From: Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Sean Elble <s_elble@xxxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3B22EC79.C12518C9@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

>
> > 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...).

well, what can i say.  i really like quicken/2000.  and wine is
just lame - it's been 75% (or whatever) done for years now, it
seems.  if i can get a nice threaded mail client with IMAP support,
i'd move my mail from win98 to KDE in a flash.

> > 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!

i'm new here - what is the metadata journaling argument re ext3?




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