xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stupid article

To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stupid article
From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:51:33 -0400
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: SmithConcepts/Personal
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010423204143.03c5dd90@pop.xs4all.nl>
Reply-to: b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx, thebs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Seth Mos wrote:
> There is a response in the bottom of the page about xfs
> support from Bryan Smith which also says that this article
> is not entirely correct.

As a sysadmin of a production network, I have to weigh my options. 
That means testing for months.  Right now, XFS is working with
flying colors.  In fact, I think the 2.4 kernel "newness" (which is
_completely_understable_) itself is holding up my adoption of it for
servers.

Ext3 in full-data journaling mode works fine for now, but it's
clearly a stop-gap measure.  I've had issues with Ext3 in meta-data
journaling (although others have reported v0.0.6b is much better).

ReiserFS is an absolute no-no as a file server IMHO because of the
kNFSd issues (despite the patches).  But I am considering it for a
Squid cache proxy server.  I'll be doing to benchmarks soon.

> The article is probably not even based on actual practical
> use or even testing the available variants.

Yeah.  I run into these people on various LUGs all the time.  I
assume RedHat is waiting on a Ext3 port to kernel 2.4 before it puts
a JFS in its installer.  I sure wish they were looking at XFS at the
same time too.

-- 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

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