xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS to main kernel source

To: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>, "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS to main kernel source
From: kris buggenhout <buggenkr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:17:25 +0200
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109211018430.21430-100000@helka> <3BAB119A.29888F3D@god.bel.alcatel.be> <3BAB3018.CFE4290C@ieee.org>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Bryan-TheBS-Smith wrote:
> 
> kris buggenhout wrote:
> > I dont think ext3 will be the contender as the design of ext3 is
> > only a patched up ext2, with a lot of limitations to it...
> 
> Being that Ext3 is based on Ext2, a very trusted filesystem in many
> circles, I'd reverse that statement "I don't think ext3 will be the
> contender."  Even Hans Reiser has changed his opinion on Ext3,
> because he finally realized that people are using it for those very
> reasons.
> 

ok for casual usage and not too big a fs, but when it tends to grow ext3
has a lot of problems.

> > I would be more concerned if Reiserfs should get its act together or
> 
> Although ReiserFS is a very novel and advanced filesystem, and is
> probably the future of filesystem design, it's breaking of
> traditional UNIX layout and structures is just too much of an issue
> to those of us who run UNIX networks.  I need reliable NFS and I
> need quota support.  Plus I don't trust its recovery mechanisms, as
> its focus seems to be on features.
> 
> > IBM invests more time into Enterprise storage manager ( on top
> > of jfs)
> 
> JFS seems to be lacking as much compatibility as ReiserFS.
> Something tells me that this is because it was a port from OS/2
> rather than AIX's version???  I haven't used or tested JFS so I'm
> making these statements blind.  Feel free to rebuke me on this, I
> just looked at its feature list, what was missing and dismissed it
> from any consideration.

I am not talking of the jfs they have out, Enterprise storage manager is
built on lvm and jfs from AIX.. this has not yet been released into OSS,
but will be.

> 
> > For the enterprose world I see Vxfs as a threat ... in unison with
> > volume manager.If Veritas pulls that off in a reasonable time
> > frame... a lot of company's will opt for Vxfs and volume manager,
> > because it can be used on almost all of their platforms : wincrap2k,
> > Solaris, Irix, Linux, HPUX, AIX,... etc...
> 
> I take it it is not OSS?  ;-PPP  It must be OSS or at least of
> commodity cost to gain widespread acceptance, regardless of
> superiority.

If You have tens or hundreds of servers already with volume manager and
Vxfs, the ability to have low cost servers on low cost hardware have the
same ... this will let it have momentum in the corporate world.

> 
> > having a unified fs architecture across platforms is a bonus ...
> > knowledge of platform is not as important anymore regarding storage (
> > which is a large part of systems management)....
> 
> True, oh so true.  Of course gaining access to Windows internals
> isn't exactly something an OSS project can do.
> 

Samba ? wine ... bochs ... ? IMHO it wont be easy, but it's certainly
not undo-able...


This is why I am so involved in using XFS ....


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