[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.041 / U:7.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site