[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [13]   [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 type
> > > 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.
> Given that the IDE code in 2.5 wrote random bad data not only in the
> mounted filesystems but on other partitions and even drives, if we are
> dropping things which have an unreasonable track record, we should drop
> IDE for sure ;-)

Things have certainly changed, (for better or worse, I'm not sure), since the 1.3.X days when a development kernel was generally still pretty stable.

> This is a development kernel, the rules for what goes in should be far
> more open than the stable series. IMHO both JFS (AIX) and XFS (IRIX)
> should be in, because they will not be solid until users actually use
> them, and better that be in a development kernel.

Totally agreed. I was talking about the stable kernel.

> > 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.
> One might note that both JFS and XFS have been around since xiafs was the
> Linux f/s of choice.

Not for Linux, though - I'm talking about years of Linux stability.

> It's all relative. If you want old and grotty, go back to minix f/s.

That's why I qualified my above comment with 'is a very capable filesystem' :-).

I know what you mean, but I was just pointing out that EXT-2 balances proven reliability in the stable kernel, features, and performance VERY well, infact what other OS family can make that claim? BSD is the only one I can think of. Oh, sure FAT has been around forever, but it's somewhat lacking in the features department.

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:0.072 / U:2.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site