lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: XFS in the main kernel
    Martin Knoblauch wrote:
    >>Re: XFS in the main kernel
    >>
    >>From: Luigi Genoni (kernel@Expansa.sns.it)
    >>On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Keith Owens wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On 22 Apr 2002 18:55:20 +0200,
    >>>wichert@cistron.nl (Wichert Akkerman) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <3CC427F4.12C40426@fnal.gov>,
    >>>>Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>I know it's been discussed to death, but I am making a formal request to you
    >>>>>to include XFS in the main kernel. We (The Sloan Digital Sky Survey) and
    >>>>>many, many other groups here at Fermilab would be very happy to have this in
    >>>>>the main tree.
    >>>>>
    >>>>Has XFS been proven to be completely stable
    >>>>
    >>>As much as any other filesystem. "There are no bugs in filesystem XYZ.
    >>>That just means that you have not looked hard enough." :) There is a
    >>>daily QA suite that XFS is run through.
    >>>
    >>In the reality the inclusion on XFS in the 2.5 tree would probably move
    >>more peole to use it, and so also to eventually trigger bugs, to report
    >>them, sometimes to fix them.
    >>This way XFS would improve faster, and of course that would be a
    >>good thing.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > definitely. Unless XFS is in the mainline kernel (marked as
    > experimantal if necessary) it will not get good exposure.
    >
    > 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 :-).
    >
    >
    >>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?
    >

    The VFS and such features like "delayed block allocation". XFS tries
    to gather 64K or so before submitting to disk/block layer.

    FWIW, SuSE 8 ships with full (but experimental marked) XFS support.



    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:5.421 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site