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

Re: XFS heaven <- Remember: Linus != RedHat

Stephen Adler wrote:
> I disagree, may new features which make it into the kernel
> are not 100% ready for prime.

As a sysadmin, I have seen this with 2.4 in the stock, RedHat and
XFS kernels.  There are many things still incomplete and/or buggy
with 2.4.  I don't know how many times I've seen bugs reported on
this list that end up being general kernel 2.4 issues.  This is to
be "expected" with 2.4's relative "newness" and as more and more
"diversity" in systems using 2.4 find these issues.

XFS is already proven on the Irix platform.  And the structure is
not changing (unlike ReiserFS, although I heard Linus made Reiser
stick with a fixed structure before 2.4 inclusion?).  IMHO, XFS is
as ready for "production use" as ReiserFS -- more so if you consider
the fact that the kernel must be patched so ReiserFS can work with

[ Side note:  I would love to see Ext3 put into the stock 2.2 tree
as it, in v1/full-data-journaling mode, has been more stable than
ReiserFS for me.  I have been running with Ext3 on high-activity,
production CVS/SMB/NFS _servers_ for almost a year now. ]

Now being a non-developer, anyone should _rebuke_me_ if I am
incorrect anywhere here.  I'm just speaking from end-user/sysadmin

> As a matter of fact, the only way you can make something
> 100% ready from prime is to get everyone to use it on the
> internet and then you will find all the bugs.

Again, IMHO as a non-developer, XFS is at the point where it should
be included in the stock kernel -- at least as much as ReiserFS
should be.  This *MAY* be a "flawed" viewpoint, and both should NOT
be in the kernel and I'm surprised ReiserFS went in on 2.4.1 -- but
I'm *NOT* going to "second guess" others who obviously know more
than me about the code anymore than I have ;-PPP.  But I see that
XFS patches against the stock kernel well, the XFS developers are
maintaining an up-to-date kernel tree in CVS themselves (because it
patches fairly easily), and offers an existing implementation that
works on other platforms (unlike ReiserFS).

> I think reiserfs is a very good example. its in the official kernel
> tree even though there are known corruptability issues.

I don't know if I would go that far, but it does have some kNFSd
issues (if not just interoperability, but performance).

> Redhat then puts it into rawhide to let us bleeding edgers kick its
> tires by building large file systems with it.

Well, if it's in the stock kernel, RedHat's not going to yank it
out.  Frankly, I'd like to see Tweedie's knowledge put to use on
XFS, but I'm not his boss, nor do I know what he's up to.  ;-PPP 
Ext3 on 2.2 is great, I use it liberally, and I'm sure Tweedie would
love to get Ext3 out on 2.4 ASAP.  But maybe it's time we look at
XFS as "our future" for Linux?  Disclaimer:  Just my $0.02 on that
-- feel free to *SMACK* this "non-developer" silly.  @-P

> Once a piece of software reaches a pleateau of stability within
> the developers circles, you have to let it out for the rest of
> us to use. As from what I read on the mailing lists,
> xfs has reached a stability pleateau on par with reiserfs and thus
> should be let into the kernel tree.

That was my point.  Although if ReiserFS isn't "really stable
enough" to be in the kernel tree, what good does it do to put XFS in
as well (two "wrongs" don't make a "right," eh)?  I don't know the
circumstances, but I felt like ReiserFS' inclusion in 2.4.1 was more
political/demand than technical.  But I'm not going to comment on
that anymore since I'm probably making it in great ignorance.

> OK, off my soap box.

Yeah, me too.

-- TheBS

Bryan "TheBS" Smith          chat:thebs413 @AOL/MSN/Yahoo
Engineer      mailto:b j smith ieee org,thebs theseus com
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
                                    -- Nicholas C. Weaver

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