Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:53:19PM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> > XFS is stable with NFS. I've done relatively small stress tests and know
> > that for loads beyond our typical here, XFS+NFS is stable. Others like Dan
> > Yocum, who is also on the list, I believe have done even more XFS+NFS
> > stress testing. ReiserFS is supposed to be approaching stability with NFS,
> > but ...
> Just to stop the FUD a bit:
> The last known reiserfs NFS problem (not being able to resolve file handles
> again under heavy load) has been fixed with 2.4.5. Before that
> it has been several years been documented as being fixable with a patch.
> The basic problem BTW was that Linux cannot handle 64bit inode numbers.
> XFS runs into the same problem when you start using filesystems >2TB.
Another topic that scares me: Is gcc 2.95. considered bad to compile xfs?
Why is egcs-2.91-something recommended?
I use 2.4.3-xfs on an i686 SMP machine as NFS server, and I had at least
two hard lockups (the last happened when mounting a CDROM on aic7xxx).
Now if I want to give 2.4.9 a try: do I have to use egcs-2.91 (not there on