On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:00:09PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:42:02AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > Sure, that's clear. What I mean is: If you turn on xfs in
> > > > RHEL4's kernel is it considered safe with 4KSTACKS?
> > >
> > > It is on already on RHEL isn't it?
> >
> > No. That's the whole point of this exercise ;)
>
> I'm saying I thought RH kernels defaulted to using CONFIG_4KSTACKS
> don't they?
Yes, they are.
> > The advantage is no xfs vs xfs.
>
> When I talked (bitched?) to some RH people about the problems with XFS
> and 4KSTACKS they claimed that ext3 is faster than XFS is pretty much
> any meaningful benchmark on 8-CPU machines or smaller.
Sounds like you talked to Arjan. He does has radical views. The real
reason are (lack of) support resources for non-ext3 filesystems.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpHP6eJCVu0r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|