| To: | Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.4.4-xfs NFS testing |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 3 May 2001 12:58:44 +0200 |
| Cc: | utz lehmann <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Eric Whiting <ewhiting@xxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3AF137CB.5DE970F6@cfl.rr.com>; from dmarkh@cfl.rr.com on Thu, May 03, 2001 at 06:49:47AM -0400 |
| References: | <3AF0468B.70E8B919@amis.com> <20010502195501.A13116@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <20010502203454.A9561@s2y4n2c.de> <3AF137CB.5DE970F6@cfl.rr.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 06:49:47AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote: > I've heard rumors on the SuSE-e list that the lastest stable release > 2.95.3 works > ok woth XFS. Haven't tried it yet. Get SuSE's rpm and try it first. The latest XFS tree has some workaround for known 2.95 long long bugs (mainly division) and they seem to work somehow; but nobody knows if that really catched all cases or if there isn't miscompilation in more obscure code paths left. XFS is full of long long computation (you wanted a "64bit filesystem", didn't you?). Using egcs 1.1 is definitely safer, with it XFS has been tested a lot more. You could also use XFS on a 64bit architecture like an Alpha. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NFS problems, Mogens Kjaer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Recompile the Red hat xfs kernel, Jake Bishop |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4.4-xfs NFS testing, Mark Hounschell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4.4-xfs NFS testing, Eric Whiting |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |