[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ReiserFS in Anaconda?



On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 21:23, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 07 November 2003 17:45, Hugo Cisneiros wrote:
> 
> >>But I always asked... Why not put by default? Lots of people are using
> >>it instead of ext3.
> 
> > Because it's not as heavily tested as ext3 by the RH folks.  They don't 
> > have confidence in it enough to allow it to be a default installer option.  
> 
> > I agree on this as well.
> 
> me too.
> 
> *ext3* is the _only_ native fs supported by RH. Neither jfs nor reiserfs are
> supported, though RH kernel brings them.

I coulda swore ext2 was in there too. ;)


> Why does people want XFS? Any _special_ feature?

A couple years ago I was one of the two Linux testers for HP's VA Fibre
Channel enterprise storage product. As such I had to do a lot of
reliability testing under such circumstances as someone accidentally
pulling the fibre channel cable, the device resetting, etc..

ReiserFS 
Sucked big arse. Nasty corruption, but that's probably not a suprise to
most here. Then to top it off, on my JBOD at home around that same time
I had a disk develop some bad sectors. I lost nearly every bit of data
on that FS, despite hours and hours of trying to fix it, right down to
editing the FS.

JFS
Was barely reaching 1.0 and would hang the machine when trying to access
FC devices. Every time.

Ext2/3
Massive failures leading to corruption. It was repeatable and reported,
but I don't know what came of it. Last tests we had ext[2,3] had serious
problems when the device went away for short periods of time (IIRC, 45
seconds or so, on the nose). 

XFS
The only FS capable of handling the terabyte sized filesystems I was
needing to test. Also it handled extended lack of device due to cable
swapping better than the rest. Further, the recovery of the filesystem
when I would manually corrupt the FS was amazing and far outperformed
others.

Further, we had less issues with things like shared filesystems over
multiple machines (don't ask ...) with XFS than the other (working)
FSes.

Also, unless things have changed since I last looked (entirely likely),
only XFS supported the full ACL stuff via Samba for NT/W2k systems.

Now, bear in mind this was back just before 2.4 came out. Things may
have changed in the last couple years. ;)

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
bill noreboots com






[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]