Florin Andrei wrote:
> That's no holy war. I think we actually agree on most issues.
> That's what i was saying. Ext3 is a nice "tour de force", but
> let's move on to some other stuff, now that 2.4 is alive and
> kicking. ;-)
Agreed. It's interesting to note that a good number of the issues
I've seen are just due to the newness of the 2.4 kernel, and not
clossal XFS issues. I've supported dozens of platforms over the
years, and Irix's XFS filesystem has always impressed me.
The fact that ReiserFS has just a little over a year of history is
what troubles me. Especially in the lack of fore-thought to
consider traditional inode layout, even in just an emulated
capacity, was overlooked.
> I agree.
I don't know all the details, but I think the adoption of ReiserFS
in the stock kernel was a "marketing" decision. Maybe someone
promised it to someone else? I guess just because they included
ReiserFS, saying they should include XFS would be like saying "two
wrongs make a right," eh? Don't get me wrong on XFS, but from
watching how Linus adds things to the kernel over the years (since
1993), you'd figure he would have said "thumbs down" to ReiserFS --
heck, I distinctly remember him saying that 2.4 would NOT have any
JFS back in January of 2000.
> The XFS project evolved much faster to a stable state, mainly
> because the FS itself was already rock solid. Only the Linux
> port needed some tweaks.
I wouldn't be surprised if XFS works better on the IA-64 and Alpha
platforms because there is not all the LFS issues that you have with
IA-32/x86 for 64-bit support.
> But with ReiserFS, the FS itself is new and evolving, hence the
> stability issues (and, i'm afraid, we will still see some of these
> issues in the future, while i expect XFS to become "really stable" and
> stay there).
Maturity is everything. XFS kicks ReiserFS' butt there. So it has
a ~9-12 month lead on Linux, big deal. I think the experience on
Irix easily knocks that -- especially for production UNIX-NFS
networks.
> However, i must say, ReiserFS worked for me always. :-) And
> it seems to be the best choice for a nice Squid box ;-)
> (at least for the proxy cache partitions)
> So, i think i would use XFS most of the time, except for
> the proxy server.
Someone really needs to write an article for one of the major
printer and/or web publications explaining this. I've seen too many
"Ext3 sucks" or "XFS sucks" comments and "ReiserFS rules
corruption-free" bigotry. [ Hence why I jumped on you too quickly,
sorry. ]
-- TheBS
--
Bryan "TheBS" Smith chat:thebs413 @AOL/MSN/Yahoo
Engineer mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx,thebs@xxxxxxxxxxx
********************************************************
"Linux will do for applications what the Internet did to
networks" -- Sam Palmisano, IBM Chief Operating Officer
|