Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:47:02 +0200 | From | Peter Wächtler <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |