Messages in this thread |  | | From | jbradford@dial ... | Subject | Re: XFS? | Date | Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:27:06 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> > > 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.
John. - 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/
|  |