xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs

To: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:04:27 +0200
Cc: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109052045580.16091-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:53:19PM +0800
References: <20010904162714.A1567@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109052045580.16091-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
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. 

-Andi


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