xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: fc3 and stacks

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: fc3 and stacks
From: Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:09:15 -0500
In-reply-to: <4235D44F.1020902@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050310232036.GA19295@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4234E903.8010309@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4235D44F.1020902@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:13:35AM -0800, Christian Rice wrote:
>As much as it would be nice (though painful) to switch to Suse or 
>something else, the RedHat line (FC3, RHEL3/4) is what the big vendors 
>wish to support in movie production.  Alias is the most notable.  None 
>of our vendors require XFS, but it is vastly preferable to me.

Indeed, the lack of 8k stacks and XFS in RHEL AS4 is a pain.

Some ways forward:
 - convince RedHat to put 8k stacks (or at least the option for it) and
   XFS into AS4.
 - try to make XFS play nicer with 4k stacks
 - run fc3. fc3 and AS4 are very similar (~ 50% of userland rpms are
   identical, the rest seem to be fairly minor variations), so if your
   vendor supports AS4 then it'll almost certainly run fine on fc3
 - install AS4 but run a fc3 (recompiled for 8k stacks) kernel
 - install AS4 but run a stock kernel.org (or XFS cvs) kernel

The first 2 of these are hard, the last 2 are pretty easy but may not
help you from a vendor support point of view. We'll probably choose the
last option.
The middle option (fc3) is what you are doing now, so you can get some
idea of XFS stability with 4k stacks for your particular workload.

I wonder why RedHat was so keen to remove 8k as an option. Things would
be fairly simple if they hadn't done that.

cheers,
robin


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