Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:43:09 +0200 (CEST) | From | Luigi Genoni <> | Subject | Re: XFS in the main kernel |
| |
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> > Re: XFS in the main kernel > > > definitely. Unless XFS is in the mainline kernel (marked as > experimantal if necessary) it will not get good exposure.
XFS needs 2.5, not 2.4, because of a lot of reasons. If I do remember well a strong obiection to XFS is that it introduces a kernel thread to emulate Irix behavious to talk with pagebuf (a la Irix), end to have an interface with VM and Block Device layer.
This forces some vincles.
It is a lot of time that I do not try XFS, so maybe things changed, but XFS has has data block of the same size of memory pages (4 or 8 Kb depending on architecture), not that I have some remak about that, but I use XFS on Irix on an Origin 2000 with a couple of TB disk space, it is another thing in front of Linux ports.
On the other side delayed allocation is quite cool ;)
> > The most important (only) reason I do not use it (and recommend our > customers against using it) is that at the moment it is impossible to > track both the kernel and XFS at the same time. This is a shame, because > I think that for some application XFS is superior to the other > alternatives (can be said about the other alternatives to :-).
Every FS has its strenght points and its weackness.
For example on MC^2 I found reiserFS on LVM to have a really good interaction with the way MC^2 works, expecially because I have a lot of small|medium sized files, I suppose.
I also tied XFS and JFS on MC^2, and maybe with other file size and I/O loads they would be better. I just talk for my systems needs.
(all test were with latest 2.4 kernels, a month ago. I cannot risk corruption on this storage system, so 2.5 is not for me there :( ).
> > > That said, it is important to > > consider the technical reasons to include XFS in 2.5 or not; if this > > inclusion could cause some troubles, if XFS fits the requirements > > Linus asks for the inclusion and what impact the inclusion would have on > > the kernel (Think to JFS as a good example of an easy inclusion, with low > > impact). > > > > so, what were the main obstacles again? The VFS layer? > See my previous comments...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |