[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: XFS?
>> In my opinion the non-inclosure in the mainline kernel is the most 
>> important reason not to use XFS (or any other FS). Which in turn
>> massively reduces the tester base. It is a shame, because for some
>> of applications it performs great, or better than anything else.
>On the other hand, filesystem corruption bugs are one of the worst type
>to suffer from. We absolutely don't want to include filesystems
>without at least a reasonable proven track record in the mainline
>kernel, and therefore encourage the various distributions to use them,
>incase any bugs do show up. Look how long a buffer overflow existed in
>Zlib unnoticed.

If enclosure in "major" distribuitons defines mainline for you, I have
to agree. Otherwise, how do you get "a proven track record in
mainline" without having it in the mainline kernel ? :-)

In any case, one could always mark XFS as "experimental" for some time.

>EXT2 is a very capable filesystem, and has *years* of proven
>reliability. That's why I'm not going to switch away from it for
>critical work any time soon.

sure, if you can live with the fsck time on your 200 GB (or bigger)
filesystem after the occasional crash.

Martin Knoblauch
Senior System Architect GmbH
Am Moosfeld 13
D-81829 Muenchen, Germany

Phone/Fax: +49-89-431987-189 / -7189
Mobile: +49-174-3069245

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 13:28    [W:0.583 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site