From:   Jim Mostek <mostek@sgi.com>
Message-Id: <200004041635.LAA08085@fsgi344.americas.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Correctness
To:     kmacy@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Kip Macy)
Date:   Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:35:21 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:     linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10004040836080.8513-100000@ribbit.CS.Berkeley.EDU> from "Kip Macy" at Apr 04, 2000 08:49:40 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk


We currently has a bunch of problems with type conflicts between
XFS and Linux. Also, there are problems getting big files ( > 2^32 ) to
work correctly. This is being address. Internally, we call this the LFS
work since it requires having the LFS patch (which I think is now all ther
in 2.3.99pre2).

The Volume management work is separate from the LFS (Large File Support) work.

Have you tried running McVoy's lmbench?
How did it crash?

Thanks,

Jim

>
>> 	8.) LFS/Volume managers (Linuxcare)
>What are you referring to with LFS? Aren't you just going to use Linux's LVM or
>are the two one and the same?
>
>
>> I think we need to stop thinking about performance until we have the above
>> completed. On the other hand, we need to keep fixing bugs/problems that
>> the "community" reports.
>
>There is certainly no point in focusing on performance until the bugs are fixed.
>You can't really focus on performance when benchmarks (McVoy's lmbench 
>specifically) crash the system.
>
>
>
>			-Kip
>