jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>>Yes, I guess I shoulda thought of that, eh? Thanks. The docs do
>>suggest that there are some significant differences between the two
>>versions of the filesystem, so I'm not sure how sanguine I'd be about
>>the degree of "testing" the filesystem has received on Linux. On the
>>
> Well SuSE ships with XFS and SuSE tends to be really good about
> testing. Better than RedHat IMHO. Just the fact that RedHat uses
> ext3 as the default is a black eye.
Well, I'd point to one major factor with RHAT; they employ Stephen
Tweedie, creator of ext3, and have been paying him to work on it for
some time now. If they _didn't_ promote use of ext3, they would be
very much vulnerable to the "won't eat their own dogfood" criticism.
> XFS has been around a LONG time, and on Linux for a couple of years
> now. Plus I believe it is the default FS for all of the really high
> end stuff SGI is doing with Linux.
Ah, but there is a bit of a 'problem' nonetheless; XFS is not
'officially supported' as part of the Linux kernel until version 2.6,
which is still pretty "bleeding edge." Until 2.6 solidifies a bit
more (aside: based on experiences with 2.6.0, "quite a lot more"), it
is a "patchy" add-on to the 'stable' 2.4 kernel series.
Do the patches work? As far as I have heard, quite well indeed. But
the fact of it not having been 'official' is a fair little bit of a
downside.
> I would (and do) trust XFS currently over ANY other journalled
> option on Linux.
I'm getting less and less inclined to trust ext3 or JFS, which "floats
upwards" any other boats that are lingering around...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
