Re: stupid article

[Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 17:51 23-4-2001 -0400, you wrote:
> 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.

We need 2.4 for having a more decent and "stable" eicon diva server (ISDN 
CARD) support. This is because the machine most of the time just sends 
faxes and serves our corparate intranet. A relative light load with enough 
ram so I would say it is good enough.

I now have 1 machine at work which is succesfully converted to xfs.
We needed to switch the raid controller in the machine so I had to do a 
dump and restore anyways. I just took the option of conversion since this 
would be the best suited time for it.

The 2nd machine will be converted when the new raid controller for that one 
arrives. This will be a somewhat riskier task since it runs our websites 
email and primary DNS. So I will need to make it a swift one.

> 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.

There are patches for squid out their that make it the fastest squid out 
their. I heard it is about a factor 4 faster then previous squids.

> > 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.

Maybe they do, but they just are not telling us so.
I don't think redhat discards options that easily.

Bye
--
Seth
Every program has two purposes
one for which it was written and
another for which it wasn't
I make the last kind.