[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS for 2.4

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4
From: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:20:04 -0900
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20031201221058.GA621@frodo>
Mail-copies-to: erbenson@alaska.net
Mail-followup-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20031201062052.GA2022@frodo> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312011202330.13692-100000@logos.cnet> <20031201221058.GA621@frodo>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
> Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed
> for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small
> and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems.
> There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed
> during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!)
> Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should
> be no surprises.

that VFS fix has also been blessed by Linus, and is in 2.6, so thats a
backport now. and its security related.

> Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks
> (especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged
> now).  To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support
> XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to,
> etc, etc.  Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS
> themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us
> that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users
> don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts.
> >From discussions with distributors, a stable 2.6 distribution will
> be many months after 2.6.0 is officially released, so these issues
> are not going to go away anytime soon.
> So, please merge XFS this time round - its actively developed, has
> a large installed user base, and has been maintained outside of 2.4
> for a long time.  We have waited patiently as each release goes by
> for you to give us the nod, and have been knocked back on a number
> of occasions while various other merges are being done.

Another point, 2.6 is not yet stable or fully usuable on many non-x86
architectures, such as powerpc.  I can tell you there are a
significant number of XFS users in the powerpc space, the reason is
simply that the users have found it to be the most reliable and solid
filesystem available, more reliable then ext3, and reiserfs
(ESPECIALLY reiserfs which is notorious for destroying entire volumes
with no prior warning, and was compleltly unusable for quite some time
do to its complete lack of regard for portability).

I myself have used XFS almost exclusivly for quite some time now on
both x86 and powerpc, including on a production server (a powerpc at

Its solid, its reliable, its proven, and it belongs in 2.4.

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgpXZIxWGj4eK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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