xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Suggestions for xfs

To: Robert Brockway <rbrockway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for xfs
From: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:39:41 -0500 (EST)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050201203908.X70122@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <000401c5085c$facba270$0a01a8c0@pcdiano> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502010827170.22168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502011529370.7140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050201203908.X70122@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Mike Burger wrote:
>
> > Actually, wouldn't it be safe to say that ext2 is/was the standard FS
> > under linux.
> >
> > After all, unless you specify that you want to use an alternate
> > filesystem, under any distribution, ext2 (maybe ext3, now) is used.
>
> It has been called the "defacto standard" filesystem but this is only for
> historical reasons.  There is no way to enforce a standard filesystem for
> Linux since I can wake up tomorrow and make a distro based on xiafs if I
> want (ok, so I'd need to patch it back into the kernel :)
>
> I've read that ext2/3 is predicted to suffer significant performance
> penalties vs xfs, reiserfs or jfs for filesystems in the multi-TB range so
> we can expect to see ext2/3 fade in years to come.

I'm not a big fan of ext2/3 by any means, but i think its a bit
near-sighted to assume that ext2/3 won't evolve in the3 future to better
handle larger filesystems.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman                                netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo                  http://netllama.ipfox.com


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