On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 03:34:25AM -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
>You write:
>| It's XFS or 6-12+ hour boot times (or just always restore from tape) in case
>| of a failure of power *and* UPS *and* auto-shutdown. Either way, without
>| XFS, a triple failure means you're down for most of a day.
>
> Is it really that slow? Although I haven't played with fsck'ing a full
>filesystem on our setup, I know that software RAID-5 resyncs ~500G in
I think it (ext2) could do my 120 Gigs on 2 drives in around 3 hours. But
that's still way too fscking long. ;)
What's a good Linux supported ATA-100 card?
> Not that I would not really love XFS in an official kernel. (That it
>is not, and that it requires so much work to put into one, is the major
Yup. that's the troublesome part, all right.
>reason I'm not even considering it here. And I like it, since we've been
>happy with it on our old SGI servers, but yoking ourselves to whatever
>kernels SGI is willing to release isn't something I can go with.)
I can understand that. For home use, I can do it. But I'd rather be getting
it in an official kernel. If SGI blows up, or implodes, or fires Eric and
Steve and Keith, then XFS is pretty much doomed. And that's not a good long
term position.
--
Alan Eldridge
from std_disclaimer import *
|