Re: XFS?

Re: XFS?

[Martin Knoblauch]

>> 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. 
>

 If enclosure in "major" distribuitons defines mainline for you, I have 
to agree. Otherwise, how do you get "a  proven track record in 
mainline" without having it in the mainline kernel ? :-)

 In any case, one could always mark XFS as "experimental" for some time.

>
>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. 

 sure, if you can live with the fsck time on your 200 GB (or bigger) 
filesystem after the occasional crash.

Martin
-- 
Martin Knoblauch
Senior System Architect
MSC.software GmbH
Am Moosfeld 13
D-81829 Muenchen, Germany

e-mail: martin.knoblauch@mscsoftware.com
http://www.mscsoftware.com
Phone/Fax: +49-89-431987-189 / -7189
Mobile: +49-174-3069245

Re: XFS?

[jbradford]

> >> 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. 
> 
> If enclosure in "major" distribuitons defines mainline for you, I have 
> to agree. Otherwise, how do you get "a  proven track record in 
> mainline" without having it in the mainline kernel ? :-)

Sorry, I meant we should be wary about what is moved from being development code to non-development code in the stable kernel.

>  In any case, one could always mark XFS as "experimental" for some time.

Exactly, I think we should.

The distributions will 'mirror' that, by including support, but not making it obvious unless you poke around looking for it - so it gets the new feature out to the more users, but doesn't present it as just another option for newbies to select without realising what they are doing.

> >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. 
> 
> sure, if you can live with the fsck time on your 200 GB (or bigger) 
> filesystem after the occasional crash.

But Linux doesn't crash...  :-)

John.

Re: XFS?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> But Linux doesn't crash...  :-)

I'm running 2.4.19-rc5-aa1 on reiserfs on some twenty workstations, 
neither of which ever crashed...

			Thunder
-- 
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-

Re: XFS?

[Joe Kellner]

Quoting Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org>:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> > But Linux doesn't crash...  :-)
> 
> I'm running 2.4.19-rc5-aa1 on reiserfs on some twenty workstations, 
> neither of which ever crashed...
> 



Alot of hosting companies employ the "pull the plug" method of solving problems.
This isnt good on non journaling filesystems. (It's not good period, but thats
not going to change anytime soon).

-------------------------------------------------
sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com

Re: XFS?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Joe Kellner wrote:
> Alot of hosting companies employ the "pull the plug" method of solving
> problems. This isnt good on non journaling filesystems. (It's not good
> period, but thats not going to change anytime soon).

I don't see where reiserfs isn't journaling.

			Thunder
-- 
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-

Re: XFS?

[Joe Kellner]

Quoting Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org>:

> Hi,
> 

> 
> I don't see where reiserfs isn't journaling.
> 


That was speaking of EXT2, not ReiserFS. Sorry for the confusion.



-------------------------------------------------
sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com

Re: XFS?

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
[...]
>> sure, if you can live with the fsck time on your 200 GB (or bigger) 
>> filesystem after the occasional crash.
>
>But Linux doesn't crash...  :-)

Just pull the power cable out of your PC and see what happens.

	Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                              Email : bernd@gams.at
g.a.m.s gmbh                                  Fax : +43 1 205255-900
Prinz-Eugen-Straße 8                    A-1040 Vienna/Austria/Europe
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at

Re: XFS?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >But Linux doesn't crash...  :-)
> 
> Just pull the power cable out of your PC and see what happens.

The UPS starts beeping.

			Thunder
-- 
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-

Re: XFS?

[Kostadin Karaivanov]

>I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
>many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
>filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.

LSM is mainstream now
OpenMosix si too intrusive (I think) as XFS _used_ to_ be_.....

>Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
>provide users with a usable, stable kernel.
>And if somebody doesn't like their way of work he is free to make it's own
>kernel tree.

>I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
>2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
>and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
>production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).

You missing the point again, "ready" does _not_ means  "stable"
I use XFS on allmost all of my PC/Servers and I never ever lose a single dot
in any file on my XFS partitions



>And after all do you think that such kind of presure over kernel
>maintainers is the way of making free software.

Kostadin Karaivanov
Senior System Administrator @ Ministry Of Finace
tel: +359 2 98592062
larry@minfin.government.bg

Re: XFS?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:52:50PM +0300, Kostadin Karaivanov wrote:
> LSM is mainstream now
> OpenMosix si too intrusive (I think) as XFS _used_ to_ be_.....

Mosix is more intrusive then XFS ever was.  Not to mention it's written in
an unportable way and integrated into the Linux enviroment very badly.

It doesn't look like the maintainers aim for integration, and even if they
did they have a long long way to get it polished up.

XFS?

[Ivan Ivanov]

I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.

XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
veri low.

On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.

With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
JFS has the same problem.
With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
solve this problem at all.

The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.

So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.

-----------------
Best Regards
Ivan

Re: XFS?

[Nero]

Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
> 
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
> 
> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
> 
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> solve this problem at all.
> 
> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
> 
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.

This just is not the issue. If we only wanted filesystems which behaved 
like ext2/3, we would only have ext2/3. The issue, if you have all 
forgotten, is Linus not providing information on why XFS is a problem to 
be merged. He asked them to make it easy to merge - they have done so. 
Now they ask why the patch is ignored, and are promptly ignored further.

Re: XFS?

[Ivan Ivanov]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Nero wrote:

> Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> > I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> > filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> > crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
> >
> > XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> > etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> > veri low.
> >
> > On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> > machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
> >
> > With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> > is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> > JFS has the same problem.
> > With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> > solve this problem at all.
> >
> > The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
> >
> > So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> > spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> > it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> > And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
>
> This just is not the issue. If we only wanted filesystems which behaved
> like ext2/3, we would only have ext2/3. The issue, if you have all
> forgotten, is Linus not providing information on why XFS is a problem to
> be merged. He asked them to make it easy to merge - they have done so.
> Now they ask why the patch is ignored, and are promptly ignored further.
>

I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.
Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
provide users with a usable, stable kernel.
And if somebody doesn't like their way of work he is free to make it's own
kernel tree.

I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).

And after all do you think that such kind of presure over kernel
maintainers is the way of making free software.

--------------------
Cheers
Ivan

Re: XFS?

[Filip Van Raemdonck]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:22:22PM +0300, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> 
> I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
> many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
> filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.

And who are most likely far more intrusive than XFS is currently, or have
other issues. [1]

> Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
> provide users with a usable, stable kernel.

So they mark XFS experimental, and unless the user configures for
experimental features to be asked for they won't even notice their presence.

> I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
> 2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
> and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
> production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).

So, you are not using ext2 then either? Since that can loose files, too, on
a crash. (I've actually even once seen a whole ext2 partition disappear
after a crash. Same for reiserfs, BTW)

Any fs can have bugs. Even while ext2 is indeed more likely to be the most
tested, it too can bite you sometimes. [1]


Regards,

Filip

[1] Actually I've had problems with dma timeouts resulting in ide hangs on
    an ext2 system last week, and it too managed to lose a few files. Sure,
    fsck picked up most of them, and none were critical, but it does prove
    my point well enough.

-- 
We have joy, we have fun,
we have Linux on our Sun.
	-- Andreas Tille

Re: XFS?

[Hans Reiser]

Ivan Ivanov wrote:

>
>  
>
>
>I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
>2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
>and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
>production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).
>
>  
>
This merely means that it should be flagged as experimental for a while. 
 There is no way a new filesystem can go into the Linux Kernel and not 
have lots of bugs found by users during the first few months anyway, 
however much we programmers might try to avoid it.

Hans

Re: XFS?

[Remco Post]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On vrijdag, september 13, 2002, at 09:47 , Ivan Ivanov wrote:

>
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by 
> UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
>

Hmm, not entirely true. We run (C)XFS on Irix on our 1024 CPU SGI Origin 
3800 box over here. Every few weeks the @$%#@ thing breaks, (CPU, bad 
memory that kind of things). This takes down at least one partition of 
the system, and sometimes a filesystem (or all filesystems). Without the 
journaling features of XFS we'd spend all of our uptime fsck-ing. What 
I'm saying, big box with lots of parts has a lot of parts that could 
possible break....


> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire 
> file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 
> will
> solve this problem at all.
>

Of course, loosing a file during a crash is not nice, but often the 
whole job has to be rerun, at least from it's last checkpoint, so 
loosing one file is not a problem. The same is true for most of the 
desktop work, it's much clearer to a user not to find his/her file in 
place, than a 'maybe corrupted' version.


> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
>
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
>

A few 1000 $ do not buy you an IRIX or a AIX box with support. So, 
spending that money wisely buys you a nice Linux box, decent hardware 
and a decent FS. Even in our very well protected environment, the 
no-break powersupply is able to fail in the most horrible way( thoiug 
that happend only once in over 20 years), having a robust FS is a must. 
There is a world of possibilities between spending $200 at Walmart for a 
low-end pc and >>$5k for your low-end IBM box. For 'small' servers that 
people will want to depend on, a decent FS is a must.

Now if XFS was as non-intrusive as FreeVFS, it probbably whould have 
been part of the main stream a long time ago. Unfortunately the XFS 
people wanted to provide functions not in the VFS layer... Now maybe if 
we cut that problem in two parts: filesystem and functional (dmapi 
IIRC), the intrusion into the VFS layer would not be taken as bad as it 
had been as it has been in the past....

- ---
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Remco Post

SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam    http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing  Tel. +31 20 592 8008    Fax. +31 20 668 3167
PGP keys at http://home.sara.nl/~remco/keys.asc

"I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer
industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer 
industry
didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE9gbWYBIoCv9yTlOwRAuZNAJ9G+HxDINeeeT0QTZn7Ly1tpqHXAwCeLxCd
OMWrvLeT643az91jwHEq240=
=zAGH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: XFS?

[Hans Reiser]

Ivan Ivanov wrote:

>With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
>solve this problem at all.
>
We have a data ordered patch that is waiting for 2.4.21pre1.

V4 uses fully atomic transactions for every fs modifying syscall 
including data, and still goes way faster than v3....

Hans

Re: XFS?

[Jesse Pollard]

On Friday 13 September 2002 02:47 am, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
>
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
>
> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)

Also note, it has been my experience that the blocks allocated to the file are
also lost. It takes a fsck operation to recover that.

I had a raided XFS filesystem that lost power at 3am every night... IRIX 
panic/crash/dead. After the third one in a row half of the raid volume was
missing. I noticed that when the aviailable space was exausted. It took an
xfs_repair to rebuild the free space. (power failure due to overloaded circuit
and somebody turned on a monitor...)

> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> solve this problem at all.
>
> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
>
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
>
> -----------------
> Best Regards
> Ivan

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

Re: XFS?

[Ian S. Nelson]

Ivan Ivanov wrote:

>I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
>filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
>crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
>
>XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
>etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
>veri low.
>
>On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
>machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
>With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
>is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
>  
>

This isn't true.  I picked XFS as the filesystem for Echostar's DP-721 
partially because when I power cycle tested them all it seemed to behave 
in the most predictable way. The meta data always seemed to be correct 
and the unflushed blocks were screwed up and *usually pointed to null 
blocks, which is what I expect.  If we're talking about a tiny little 
file then you might lose the whole thing, it's all an unflushed block. 
 Since then I've seen the product in the field have the plug pulled 
multiple times during a PVR recording and you lose the  time during the 
boot but just about everything else is there.    

* I think after hundreds of reboots you could screw that up, we fixed it 
by doing a repair during the boot periodically which was still very very 
fast compared to a fsck.  Also, not terribly important since a few 
blocks is only a couple seconds of recording.

I'm not entirely sure what the correct semantics are for losing power 
during a write, with some of the Reiserfs cuts I was looking at (circa 
kernel 2.3.99) when you pulled the plug the last blocks committed would 
be garbage.  I remember a thread that said something to the extent the 
the DMAs keep going for a few milliseconds after power is cut but the 
data they transfer is trash; I don't know if I believe that or not.  It 
was very consistent though,  it could be that the metadata just pointed 
to blocks on the disk that didn't have zeros in them or something. 
 Still, it didn't trash the whole file, it did it mostly correct 
assuming that you detect that there was a crash and intervene; your logs 
or whatever could have some garbage but everything keeps running for the 
most part.

I really don't know how you call a filesystem good or not.  I think XFS 
isn't in yet simply because it's big and Linus may not have had the time 
yet to read it all.  XFS, JFS, Reiserfs, and even EXT3 are way too big 
to just test in a lab (Alan's house?) and call "bug free, ready for 
production"  You put them in, call them experimental, more of us hammer 
on them, and they grow into trusted.  From my personal experience, all 
of them have been pretty good and I haven't seen major problems with any 
of them in a long time and I did try to do some rigorous scientific 
testing of them all, I'm not just spouting hearsay.

Ian Nelson

Re: XFS?

[jbradford]

> > > sure, if you can live with the fsck time on your 200 GB (or bigger) 
> > > filesystem after the occasional crash.
> > >
> > But Linux doesn't crash...  :-)
> >
> Just pull the power cable out of your PC and see what happens.

OK, hang on a minute...  Ah, here it is, right...  OK, this is what happens, ready...

NO CARRIER

Re: XFS?

[Tony Gale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 16:53, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:

> >  In any case, one could always mark XFS as "experimental" for some time.
> 
> Exactly, I think we should.
> 

I disagree. Ask the people who are using it in anger (which I am) and I
think you'll find they don't think the code quality warants an
"experimental" tag.

> 
> > >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. 
> > 

So does XFS. It just happens to be measured in IRIX years.

-tony


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 350 bytes --]

Re: XFS?

[Tomas Szepe]

> > > >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. 
> So does XFS. It just happens to be measured in IRIX years.

Don't forget you're talking four megabytes of ported code.

By the way, just out of curiosity, would someone kindly have a go at
summarizing what's going on inside XFS that would justify its sources
being almost six times the size of reiserfs?  I have read the XFS
feature list carefully, however, I still fail to see where the great
difference is.

T.

Re: XFS?

[Martin Knoblauch]

>> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet? 
>> 
>> Don't know about RedHat & others, but SuSE _does_ ship XFS. 
>> 
>
>
>I should probably keep out of the discussion and I am not presenting 
>this as an argument for inclusion, but for an incomplete list of XFS 
>users and distribution including it look here: 
>
>
>http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/xfs_users.html 
>
>
>Steve 
Steve,

 [shameless plug to follow]

 you may add MSC.linux (http://www.msclinux.com) to your list. We 
support it since day one. Probably not a mainstream reference, but we 
are working in an application field that can make good use of XFS.

 [end of shamelse plug]

 Your list of users is great, but without mainstream support its growth 
will be severely limited.

 OK, but I understand people are working to change that for 2.6 :-)

Cheers
Martin
-- 
Martin Knoblauch
Senior System Architect
MSC.software GmbH
Am Moosfeld 13
D-81829 Muenchen, Germany

e-mail: martin.knoblauch@mscsoftware.com
http://www.mscsoftware.com
Phone/Fax: +49-89-431987-189 / -7189
Mobile: +49-174-3069245

Re: XFS?

[Martin Knoblauch]

>> So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet? 
>> 
>> john 
>> 
>
>Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since 8.0. 
>AFAIK, Suse 
>and Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now too. 

 for what its worth, MSC.Linux supports it on IA32 and IA64 :-)

 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.

Martin
-- 
Martin Knoblauch
Senior System Architect
MSC.software GmbH
Am Moosfeld 13
D-81829 Muenchen, Germany

e-mail: martin.knoblauch@mscsoftware.com
http://www.mscsoftware.com
Phone/Fax: +49-89-431987-189 / -7189
Mobile: +49-174-3069245

Re: XFS?

[jbradford]

> 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.

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.

John.

Re: XFS?

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:

> > 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 ;-)

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.

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

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: XFS?

[jbradford]

> > > 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.

Re: XFS?

[jlnance]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:53:31AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> 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.

JFS is in isnt it?

> One might note that both JFS and XFS have been around since xiafs was the
> Linux f/s of choice. It's all relative. If you want old and grotty, go
> back to minix f/s.

Ah, you remember xiafs.  Perhaps the first big flamewar on the kernel
mailing list.

Jim

Re: XFS?

[Peter Chubb]

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Kellner <jdk@kingsmeadefarm.com> writes:
>> So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
>> 
>> john
>> 

Joe> Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since
Joe> 8.0. AFAIK, Suse and Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now
Joe> too.


FWIW so does debian.

--
Dr Peter Chubb				    peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all almost the same.

Re: XFS?

[Andi Kleen]

Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> > finally merge it?
> 
> It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> a) doesn't always work like it should yet

That's quite bogus. While not being perfect XFS just works fine for lots
of people in production and performs very well for a lot of tasks.

> b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for 
>    pretty good reasons.

I think that's FUD too. That last patch had 6 lines or so of changes 
to generic code, everything else was already merged.

I guess it just ended up in Linus' spam filters, like some other things...

-Andi

Re: XFS?

[Shawn]

XFS needs a sponser. Who amung Linus's circle of trust cares to comment
or re-evaluate?

If no one, I guess it's a moot point.

On 09/09, Andi Kleen said something like:
> Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> > > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> > > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> > > finally merge it?
> > 
> > It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> > a) doesn't always work like it should yet
> 
> That's quite bogus. While not being perfect XFS just works fine for lots
> of people in production and performs very well for a lot of tasks.
> 
> > b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for 
> >    pretty good reasons.
> 
> I think that's FUD too. That last patch had 6 lines or so of changes 
> to generic code, everything else was already merged.
> 
> I guess it just ended up in Linus' spam filters, like some other things...
> 
> -Andi
> -
> 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/
--
Shawn Leas
core@enodev.com

I planted some bird seed.  A bird came up.  Now I don't know
what to feed it.
						-- Stephen Wright

Re: XFS?

[Robert Love]

On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 17:20, Shawn wrote:

> XFS needs a sponser. Who amung Linus's circle of trust cares to comment
> or re-evaluate?
>
> If no one, I guess it's a moot point.

Christoph Hellwig (hch) is working on the patches... I cannot speak for
Linus, but I think most of us trust him.  I do.

	Robert Love

Re: XFS?

[Mike Galbraith]

At 04:20 PM 9/9/2002 -0500, Shawn wrote:
>XFS needs a sponser. Who amung Linus's circle of trust cares to comment
>or re-evaluate?
>
>If no one, I guess it's a moot point.

(see below)

>On 09/09, Andi Kleen said something like:
> > Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org> writes:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> > > > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the 
> list
> > > > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> > > > finally merge it?
> > >
> > > It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> > > a) doesn't always work like it should yet
> >
> > That's quite bogus. While not being perfect XFS just works fine for lots
> > of people in production and performs very well for a lot of tasks.
> >
> > > b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for
> > >    pretty good reasons.
> >
> > I think that's FUD too. That last patch had 6 lines or so of changes
> > to generic code, everything else was already merged.

                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

         -Mike

Re: XFS?

[Shawn]

I'm not sure what this is intended to communicate.

The question was specifically regarding filesystem support, so I'll
assume you meant to point out that XFS does not always work like it
should.

Then, am I incorrect that since almost all of XFS that's left to merge
is XFS code and not changes to the kernel at large?

If this is correct, could I then make the assumption that merging XFS
would be minimally impactful for those kernel user who do not enable it?

Linus incorporated reiserfs long before it "always functioned as it is
supposed to", so I find myself wondering where your point was.

(see below) and "^^^^^^^^^^^^^" don't fully cover your thoughts I'm
afraid.

On 09/10, Mike Galbraith said something like:
> At 04:20 PM 9/9/2002 -0500, Shawn wrote:
> >XFS needs a sponser. Who amung Linus's circle of trust cares to comment
> >or re-evaluate?
> >
> >If no one, I guess it's a moot point.
> 
> (see below)
> 
> >On 09/09, Andi Kleen said something like:
> > > Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> > > > > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the 
> > list
> > > > > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> > > > > finally merge it?
> > > >
> > > > It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> > > > a) doesn't always work like it should yet
> > >
> > > That's quite bogus. While not being perfect XFS just works fine for lots
> > > of people in production and performs very well for a lot of tasks.
> > >
> > > > b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for
> > > >    pretty good reasons.
> > >
> > > I think that's FUD too. That last patch had 6 lines or so of changes
> > > to generic code, everything else was already merged.
> 
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>          -Mike
> 
> -
> 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/
--
Shawn Leas
core@enodev.com

I got food poisoning today.  I don't know when I'll use it.
						-- Stephen Wright

Re: XFS?

[Robert Love]

On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 15:23, Shawn wrote:

> If this is correct, could I then make the assumption that merging XFS
> would be minimally impactful for those kernel user who do not enable it?

Yes, and I think it will go in.  It has just not made it passed Linus's
filters yet, but it will - hch knows what he is doing.

	Robert Love

Re: XFS?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Shawn wrote:
> Linus incorporated reiserfs long before it "always functioned as it is
> supposed to", so I find myself wondering where your point was.

It was my point, actually. I was referring to some crashes caused by XFS, 
however, they seem resolved. I also want to be commonly known as not 
hating XFS. It seems pretty cool.

			Thunder
-- 
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-

Re: XFS?

[Bryan Whitehead]

Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Shawn wrote:
> 
>>Linus incorporated reiserfs long before it "always functioned as it is
>>supposed to", so I find myself wondering where your point was.
> 
> 
> It was my point, actually. I was referring to some crashes caused by XFS, 
> however, they seem resolved. I also want to be commonly known as not 
> hating XFS. It seems pretty cool.
> 
> 			Thunder

I know of some rather large projects that use it with mandrake... But I 
can't be specific. ;)

-- 
Bryan Whitehead
SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology
Phone: 818 354 2903
driver@jpl.nasa.gov

Re: XFS?

[John Alvord]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:23:47 -0500, Shawn <core@enodev.com> wrote:

>I'm not sure what this is intended to communicate.
>
>The question was specifically regarding filesystem support, so I'll
>assume you meant to point out that XFS does not always work like it
>should.
>
>Then, am I incorrect that since almost all of XFS that's left to merge
>is XFS code and not changes to the kernel at large?
>
>If this is correct, could I then make the assumption that merging XFS
>would be minimally impactful for those kernel user who do not enable it?
>
>Linus incorporated reiserfs long before it "always functioned as it is
>supposed to", so I find myself wondering where your point was.

If memory serves, Linus incorporated reiserfs after several major
distributors started including it. Linus seems to pay a lot of
attention to distributions in areas where he isn't so much interested.

So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?

john

Re: XFS?

[Hans Reiser]

John Alvord wrote:

>  
>
>If memory serves, Linus incorporated reiserfs after several major
>distributors started including it. Linus seems to pay a lot of
>attention to distributions in areas where he isn't so much interested.
>
>So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
>
>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/
>
>
>  
>
Mandrake does if I remember right.  

XFS is cool, and their allocation at flush innovation has influenced 
reiser4 deeply.  I wish them well.

Hans

Re: XFS?

[Joe Kellner]

> So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
> 
> john
> 

Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since 8.0. AFAIK, Suse
and  Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now too.



-------------------------------------------------
sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com

Re: XFS?

[David Lang]

and you know something is mainstream when slackware includes it.

said as a longtime slackware user :-)

I know slackware 8.1 included XFS, I don't think it was in 8.0.

David Lang

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joe Kellner wrote:

> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:17:52 -0400
> From: Joe Kellner <jdk@kingsmeadefarm.com>
> To: John Alvord <jalvo@mbay.net>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: XFS?
>
>
> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
> >
> > john
> >
>
> Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since 8.0. AFAIK, Suse
> and  Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now too.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com
> -
> 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/
>

Re: XFS?

[Tomas Szepe]

> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
> 
> Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since 8.0. AFAIK, Suse
> and  Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now too.

Slackware lets you use a special install kernel that has XFS [1] compiled in
and that the installer can take advantage of.  However, you have to provide
your own XFS vmlinuz for actually booting into the new system, as Slackware
rightly continues to use bare Marcelo(tm) kernels.

[1] and JFS, too.

T.

Re: XFS?

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <20020910203122.GU26075@louise.pinerecords.com> you wrote:
> Slackware lets you use a special install kernel that has XFS [1] compiled in

so does debian do support XFS:
http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/woody_xfs/

Greetings
Bernd

Re: XFS?

[Nick LeRoy]

> So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?

Don't know about RedHat & others, but SuSE _does_ ship XFS.

-Nick

Re: XFS?

[Tomas Szepe]

> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
> 
> Don't know about RedHat & others, but SuSE _does_ ship XFS.

RedHat apparently doesn't want any more trouble than absolutely
necessary and only provides ext[32] installs by default. SuSE and
Mandrake can't -- *IMHO* -- be considered sensible distributions.

T.

Re: XFS?

[Steve Lord]

On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 17:18, Nick LeRoy wrote:
> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
> 
> Don't know about RedHat & others, but SuSE _does_ ship XFS.
> 

I should probably keep out of the discussion and I am not presenting
this as an argument for inclusion, but for an incomplete list of XFS
users and distribution including it look here:

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/xfs_users.html

Steve

Re: XFS?

[jw schultz]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:18:31PM -0700, Nick LeRoy wrote:
> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
> 
> Don't know about RedHat & others, but SuSE _does_ ship XFS.
> 

Yes it does.  I'm guessing the one in 8.0 is an older
version because i found it performs abysmally.  It seemed
stable enough but i used it for backups with lots of file
creation and deletion and my jobs took about 10 times longer
to run than on ext2 or JFS (also included in the 2.4.18+
SuSE 8.0)  For other use it is probably fine.  I look
forward to trying newer versions.

While i'm talking about it online resize including shrinkage
is a fairly high priority for me.  Any journaling filesystem
without that feature is going to be a second-rater.  So
without it XFS is unlikely to become a primary filesystme
choice for me.  That said, i'm glad to see variety in the
journaling filesystems and look forward to XFS getting in
mainline so we can use whatever filesystem that best meets
our needs.  This of course means that we will need decent,
independent, comparisons of the filesystems.

And think about this:  In almost all other OSs of substance
you have one or two basic filesystem types and if you want
journaling you have to pay extra for it.  And journaling
filesystems don't have to be fast, there is very little real
competition.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: XFS?

[Nick LeRoy]

On Wednesday 11 September 2002 01:43, jw schultz wrote:

Not that I'm trying to keep this thread alive or anything..

> Yes it does.  I'm guessing the one in 8.0 is an older
> version because i found it performs abysmally.  It seemed
> stable enough but i used it for backups with lots of file
> creation and deletion and my jobs took about 10 times longer
> to run than on ext2 or JFS (also included in the 2.4.18+
> SuSE 8.0)  For other use it is probably fine.  I look
> forward to trying newer versions.

I wasn't making any claims to have _tried_ it or anything.  I simply stated 
that it's _there_ and, I think, supported.  Personally, I've switched to 
Reiserfs (thanks, Hans!), which I'm _really_ happy with.  Yeah, I should 
investigate the other options, but, honestly, there isn't a lot of neccessity 
to.

> And think about this:  In almost all other OSs of substance
> you have one or two basic filesystem types and if you want
> journaling you have to pay extra for it.  And journaling
> filesystems don't have to be fast, there is very little real
> competition.

I'm not sure if you're saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  FWIW, 
I think this is a wonderful feature, albeit potentially confusing to a Newbie   
For my O2 running IRIX I get XFS whether I like it or not, for Solaris I get 
UFS no matter how much it sucks (I'm not really saying that it does; I don't 
have much knowledge of it to be honest).  This multitude of choices really 
causes competition between them, and makes them all better in the long run.

Think about this:  Namesys is working on Reiserfs v4.0.  v4.0.  Hell - it's 
only been incorporated into the mainstream kernel for less than a year (at 
least by my recollection), yet it keeps advancing.  I have _no_ idea what UFS 
version Solaris 8 is using (admittedly at least somewhat due to ignorance -- 
I use Solaris because I have a good ol' SPARCprinter which alas is not 
supported by Linux), or whether they've bother to do development on it to 
make it better, faster, etc.  Yet, _we_ get this advancement all the time.  
Isn't it great?!

Ok, time to step off my soapbox and get back to work.

-Nick

Re: XFS?

[Hans Reiser]

Nick LeRoy wrote:

>  
>
>
>Think about this:  Namesys is working on Reiserfs v4.0.  v4.0.  Hell - it's 
>only been incorporated into the mainstream kernel for less than a year (at 
>least by my recollection), yet it keeps advancing.  I have _no_ idea what UFS 
>version Solaris 8 is using (admittedly at least somewhat due to ignorance -- 
>I use Solaris because I have a good ol' SPARCprinter which alas is not 
>supported by Linux), or whether they've bother to do development on it to 
>make it better, faster, etc.  Yet, _we_ get this advancement all the time.  
>Isn't it great?!
>
>  
>
I think you'll really like v4, it is a complete rewrite from scratch, 
and far better in every way.  :)

Hans

Re: XFS?

[Gerhard Mack]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:

> I think you'll really like v4, it is a complete rewrite from scratch,
> and far better in every way.  :)

Same disk layout or a new one ?

	Gerhard


--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: XFS?

[Lorenzo Allegrucci]

On Wednesday 11 September 2002 19:08, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I think you'll really like v4, it is a complete rewrite from scratch,
> and far better in every way.  :)

I don't speak as developer, but I really hope it follows the Linux
CodingStyle this time.  Code review would get much benefit, making v4
even better.

Re: XFS?

[Bryan Whitehead]

Hans Reiser wrote:
> Nick LeRoy wrote:
> 
>>  
>>
>>
>> Think about this:  Namesys is working on Reiserfs v4.0.  v4.0.  Hell - 
>> it's only been incorporated into the mainstream kernel for less than a 
>> year (at least by my recollection), yet it keeps advancing.  I have 
>> _no_ idea what UFS version Solaris 8 is using (admittedly at least 
>> somewhat due to ignorance -- I use Solaris because I have a good ol' 
>> SPARCprinter which alas is not supported by Linux), or whether they've 
>> bother to do development on it to make it better, faster, etc.  Yet, 
>> _we_ get this advancement all the time.  Isn't it great?!
>>
>>  
>>
> I think you'll really like v4, it is a complete rewrite from scratch, 
> and far better in every way.  :)
> 
> Hans

What blows my mind (from someone that only watches kernel development) 
is how one project, XFS, a filesystem basically "done" is excluded from 
the mainline kernel while ReiserFS is getting a "complete rewrite from 
scratch".

Maybe I don't get it cause I'm just watching... ;)

-- 
Bryan Whitehead
SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology
Phone: 818 354 2903
driver@jpl.nasa.gov

Re: XFS?

[Nikita Danilov]

Bryan Whitehead writes:
 > Hans Reiser wrote:
 > > Nick LeRoy wrote:
 > > 
 > >>  
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> Think about this:  Namesys is working on Reiserfs v4.0.  v4.0.  Hell - 
 > >> it's only been incorporated into the mainstream kernel for less than a 
 > >> year (at least by my recollection), yet it keeps advancing.  I have 
 > >> _no_ idea what UFS version Solaris 8 is using (admittedly at least 
 > >> somewhat due to ignorance -- I use Solaris because I have a good ol' 
 > >> SPARCprinter which alas is not supported by Linux), or whether they've 
 > >> bother to do development on it to make it better, faster, etc.  Yet, 
 > >> _we_ get this advancement all the time.  Isn't it great?!
 > >>
 > >>  
 > >>
 > > I think you'll really like v4, it is a complete rewrite from scratch, 
 > > and far better in every way.  :)
 > > 
 > > Hans
 > 
 > What blows my mind (from someone that only watches kernel development) 
 > is how one project, XFS, a filesystem basically "done" is excluded from 
 > the mainline kernel while ReiserFS is getting a "complete rewrite from 
 > scratch".
 > 
 > Maybe I don't get it cause I'm just watching... ;)

Then you missed "reiserfs inclusion into the kernel" soap opera.

And besides, reiserfs in mainline to no extent means reiser4 in mainline
(unfortunately).

 > 
 > -- 
 > Bryan Whitehead

Nikita.

 > SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology
 > Phone: 818 354 2903
 > driver@jpl.nasa.gov
 > 

Re: XFS?

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Nikita Danilov wrote:

> Then you missed "reiserfs inclusion into the kernel" soap opera.
> 
> And besides, reiserfs in mainline to no extent means reiser4 in mainline
> (unfortunately).

No, that's probably a good thing. I don't care how good any programming
team might be, an implementation written from scratch probably should burn
in for a while before going in anywhere it might be used for production.

And with all respect to the group, a 4th rewite from scratch in only a few
years suggests that the ratio of coding to designing is pretty high.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: XFS?

[Hans Reiser]

Bill Davidsen wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Nikita Danilov wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Then you missed "reiserfs inclusion into the kernel" soap opera.
>>
>>And besides, reiserfs in mainline to no extent means reiser4 in mainline
>>(unfortunately).
>>    
>>
>
>No, that's probably a good thing. I don't care how good any programming
>team might be, an implementation written from scratch probably should burn
>in for a while before going in anywhere it might be used for production.
>
>And with all respect to the group, a 4th rewite from scratch in only a few
>years suggests that the ratio of coding to designing is pretty high.
>
>  
>
Version 3 came out in 1998 or so, and large software projects should be, 
but rarely are, rewritten from scratch every 5 years.  If you want to 
object to XFS, object that it hasn't been rewritten in recent times.

As for the notion that the more designing you do, the less rewriting you 
need to do, it is a bit like the belief that the better your scientific 
theories the less you need to perform experiments.

Projects that are no longer attempting rewrites of their cores are dead 
in their soul, and their authors should pass them on to someone younger.

That said, version 4 will be followed by semantic enhancements and 
distributed filesystem work, as I finally have in version 4 a storage 
layer good enough that I can move mostly to the tasks that first 
interested me about FS design.  Most of the stuff that needs improvement 
in the version 4 storage layer can be done as new plugins, or so I 
fondly hope.;-)

Hans

Re: XFS?

[Bill Davidsen]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Bill Davidsen wrote:

> >No, that's probably a good thing. I don't care how good any programming
> >team might be, an implementation written from scratch probably should burn
> >in for a while before going in anywhere it might be used for production.
> >
> >And with all respect to the group, a 4th rewite from scratch in only a few
> >years suggests that the ratio of coding to designing is pretty high.

> As for the notion that the more designing you do, the less rewriting you 
> need to do, it is a bit like the belief that the better your scientific 
> theories the less you need to perform experiments.

Exactly so. I spent several decades doing software development at GE's
Corporate R&D Center, and I had ample proof that both of those things are
true. I think the phrase you want in English is "fewer experiments you
need to perform," but you did see the principle.
 
> Projects that are no longer attempting rewrites of their cores are dead 
> in their soul, and their authors should pass them on to someone younger.

Hear that, Linus? Off to the retirement home with you unless you "rm *"
your source tree and "go back to Baltimore and start over again as a
virgin." Actually I think that Linux is an example of major software
designed from the start to be rewritten in parts and to evolve as a whole.
no clean sheet of paper needed.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: XFS?

[Samuel Flory]

Bryan Whitehead wrote:

>>
>
> What blows my mind (from someone that only watches kernel development) 
> is how one project, XFS, a filesystem basically "done" is excluded 
> from the mainline kernel while ReiserFS is getting a "complete rewrite 
> from scratch".
>
> Maybe I don't get it cause I'm just watching... ;)
>

  Keep in mind Linus ignored reiserfs for a long time and then just 
merged it in.  I think it was 2.4.1 or so.

Re: XFS?

[jw schultz]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 08:20:36AM -0700, Nick LeRoy wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 September 2002 01:43, jw schultz wrote:
> 
> > And think about this:  In almost all other OSs of substance
> > you have one or two basic filesystem types and if you want
> > journaling you have to pay extra for it.  And journaling
> > filesystems don't have to be fast, there is very little real
> > competition.
> 
> I'm not sure if you're saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  FWIW, 

Unless you like tyrany choice is a good thing(TM).  Trust
me, i don't like tyrany.

> I think this is a wonderful feature, albeit potentially confusing to a Newbie   
> For my O2 running IRIX I get XFS whether I like it or not, for Solaris I get 
> UFS no matter how much it sucks (I'm not really saying that it does; I don't 
> have much knowledge of it to be honest).  This multitude of choices really 
> causes competition between them, and makes them all better in the long run.

On Solaris and some other platforms you can, with lots of
money, buy a license to run the Veritas journaling
filesystem.  It comes with a license manager and you have to
get license keys to mount the filesystems.  Ever had a
filesystem not come up after a reboot because the license
expired, i have (ouch, i told management to renew the
license).  Is veritas fast? I don't know.  They hype the
journaling, not speed.  And what are you going to benchmark
against?.

Recently Veritas announced they were going to support Linux.
I'm curious to see how they fare in a shootout with the
other journaling filesystems.  Of course i wouldn't taint MY
kernel to run it when i have four others to choose from.

> Think about this:  Namesys is working on Reiserfs v4.0.  v4.0.  Hell - it's 
> only been incorporated into the mainstream kernel for less than a year (at 
> least by my recollection), yet it keeps advancing.  I have _no_ idea what UFS 
> version Solaris 8 is using (admittedly at least somewhat due to ignorance -- 
> I use Solaris because I have a good ol' SPARCprinter which alas is not 
> supported by Linux), or whether they've bother to do development on it to 
> make it better, faster, etc.  Yet, _we_ get this advancement all the time.  
> Isn't it great?!

Fantastic.  And that is largly without competition.  Just
wait and watch what the JFS and XFS developers do to improve
their products to keep up.

As for UFS, the only thing they can do to it is to adjust
the block allocation heuristics.  Something i'm sure they
have done to death for the TPC benchmarks they live and die
by.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: XFS?

[Nick LeRoy]

> > I'm not sure if you're saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing. 
> > FWIW,
>
> Unless you like tyrany choice is a good thing(TM).  Trust
> me, i don't like tyrany.

I like the way you phrased that...

> On Solaris and some other platforms you can, with lots of
> money, buy a license to run the Veritas journaling
> filesystem.  It comes with a license manager and you have to
> get license keys to mount the filesystems.  Ever had a
> filesystem not come up after a reboot because the license
> expired, i have (ouch, i told management to renew the
> license).  Is veritas fast? I don't know.  They hype the
> journaling, not speed.  And what are you going to benchmark
> against?.

Wow..  I thought it was a pain in the ass when we had licencing problems with 
ClearCase.

> Recently Veritas announced they were going to support Linux.
> I'm curious to see how they fare in a shootout with the
> other journaling filesystems.  Of course i wouldn't taint MY
> kernel to run it when i have four others to choose from.

Why, oh, why would anybody _pay_ for something like that when there's a 
plethora of excellent filesystems for Linux already?!

> Fantastic.  And that is largly without competition.  Just
> wait and watch what the JFS and XFS developers do to improve
> their products to keep up.

At least there seems to be active & open development on them.

Thanks for the reply!

-Nick

Re: XFS?

[Robert Varga]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2065 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:21:46PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 08:20:36AM -0700, Nick LeRoy wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 September 2002 01:43, jw schultz wrote:
> > I think this is a wonderful feature, albeit potentially confusing to a Newbie   
> > For my O2 running IRIX I get XFS whether I like it or not, for Solaris I get 
> > UFS no matter how much it sucks (I'm not really saying that it does; I don't 
> > have much knowledge of it to be honest).  This multitude of choices really 
> > causes competition between them, and makes them all better in the long run.
> 
> On Solaris and some other platforms you can, with lots of
> money, buy a license to run the Veritas journaling
> filesystem.  It comes with a license manager and you have to
> get license keys to mount the filesystems.  Ever had a
> filesystem not come up after a reboot because the license
> expired, i have (ouch, i told management to renew the
> license).  Is veritas fast? I don't know.  They hype the
> journaling, not speed.  And what are you going to benchmark
> against?.

Against UFS, of course [1] :-) Their hype is "our journal is faster than
UFS", which is probably true. They have extent-based allocation,
which is good for their greatest hype - performance with databases
(see all the marketing shredder-food about [Cached] QuickIO).
They have hot resizing, which fast as hell (again, compared to UFS),
they have snapshots, which are cool. And don't forget the GFS capability,
which I am yet to see in action. [2]

So in Solaris world, for large filesystems, Veritas is the winner. I am
really looking forward to seeing how will they do in the OpenSource
world.

[1] Actually they benchmark Oracle on raw devices vs. Cached QuickIO, too.
[2] Even tough the options are expensive, in my experience all of them
work perfectly.

-- 
Kind regards,
Robert Varga
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n@hq.sk                                          http://hq.sk/~nite/gpgkey.txt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: XFS?

[jw schultz]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:01:38AM +0200, Robert Varga wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:21:46PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 08:20:36AM -0700, Nick LeRoy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 11 September 2002 01:43, jw schultz wrote:
> > > I think this is a wonderful feature, albeit potentially confusing to a Newbie   
> > > For my O2 running IRIX I get XFS whether I like it or not, for Solaris I get 
> > > UFS no matter how much it sucks (I'm not really saying that it does; I don't 
> > > have much knowledge of it to be honest).  This multitude of choices really 
> > > causes competition between them, and makes them all better in the long run.
> > 
> > On Solaris and some other platforms you can, with lots of
> > money, buy a license to run the Veritas journaling
> > filesystem.  It comes with a license manager and you have to
> > get license keys to mount the filesystems.  Ever had a
> > filesystem not come up after a reboot because the license
> > expired, i have (ouch, i told management to renew the
> > license).  Is veritas fast? I don't know.  They hype the
> > journaling, not speed.  And what are you going to benchmark
> > against?.
> 
> Against UFS, of course [1] :-) Their hype is "our journal is faster than
> UFS", which is probably true. They have extent-based allocation,

Comparing Veritas FS against UFS is like comparing apples
and steak.  Their goals are so diffent it is rediculous.

My comment is that with no apples-apples comparisons (or at
least apples-pears) who knows how good it is.

> which is good for their greatest hype - performance with databases
> (see all the marketing shredder-food about [Cached] QuickIO).
> They have hot resizing, which fast as hell (again, compared to UFS),
> they have snapshots, which are cool. And don't forget the GFS capability,
> which I am yet to see in action. [2]
> 
> So in Solaris world, for large filesystems, Veritas is the winner. I am
> really looking forward to seeing how will they do in the OpenSource
> world.

Don't get me wrong, feature-wise Veritas FS is a great
product.  Their hot resizing (including shrink) is a
must-have feature.  I never had a lick of problems with it
despite flaky GbIX (Gibabit FCAL Interface transceivers).

> [1] Actually they benchmark Oracle on raw devices vs. Cached QuickIO, too.
> [2] Even tough the options are expensive, in my experience all of them
> work perfectly.



-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: XFS?

[Mike Galbraith]

At 02:23 PM 9/10/2002 -0500, Shawn wrote:
>I'm not sure what this is intended to communicate.

(sigh)
If "everything else" the XFS team has asked for has gone in, it seems 
unlikely that
sponsorship is needed.

         -Mike

Re: XFS?

[Shawn]

Which is why I pointed out that the issue at hand was not regarding the
everything else, but in fact the actual filesystem support.

As far as why the rest is still pending, I was just offering ideas.

A lot of this thread is advocacy as opposed to substantive conversation
about the how and/or why/why not of inclusion of XFS into mainline.
Fankly, there is no /real/ answer except "Linus has not weighed in on
the current question".

I lost my ability to invest emotions in either side of huge kernel
debates when the devfs and lvm wars happened.

On 09/10, Mike Galbraith said something like:
> At 02:23 PM 9/10/2002 -0500, Shawn wrote:
> >I'm not sure what this is intended to communicate.
> 
> (sigh)
> If "everything else" the XFS team has asked for has gone in, it seems 
> unlikely that
> sponsorship is needed.
> 
>          -Mike

--
Shawn Leas
core@enodev.com

I went to the eye doctor and found out I needed glasses for reading.  So,
I got some flip-up contact lenses.
						-- Stephen Wright

Re: XFS?

[Mike Galbraith]

At 09:55 AM 9/11/2002 -0500, Shawn wrote:
>Which is why I pointed out that the issue at hand was not regarding the
>everything else, but in fact the actual filesystem support.

I was just trying to say that everything _appears_ to be on track from my
(remote) perspective.  I've noticed no gripes from the XFS team, only
evidence that development continues.  If there are 6 lines of generic code
changes left, that means a lot has happened.

>As far as why the rest is still pending, I was just offering ideas.
>
>A lot of this thread is advocacy as opposed to substantive conversation
>about the how and/or why/why not of inclusion of XFS into mainline.

Advocacy without technical meat sucks.

>Fankly, there is no /real/ answer except "Linus has not weighed in on
>the current question".

Hey, maybe he's trying to convince (blackmail;) them to port some bandwidth
guarantee stuff ;)))))  (I hope that's enough smilies)

>I lost my ability to invest emotions in either side of huge kernel
>debates when the devfs and lvm wars happened.

I love it when the heavyweights square off  (oooo:).  Unfortunately, that often
leads to a bunch of dipsticks hollering "food fight!" ;-)

         -Mike

Re: XFS?

[Bill Davidsen]

On 9 Sep 2002, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> > > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> > > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> > > finally merge it?
> > 
> > It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> > a) doesn't always work like it should yet
> 
> That's quite bogus. While not being perfect XFS just works fine for lots
> of people in production and performs very well for a lot of tasks.

More to the point, a quick scan of LKML will show that there are fixes for
ext3 and reisser on a regular basis, so one must assume that they don't
always work as they should either. XFS is in a number of distributions,
and is stable for users.
 
> > b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for 
> >    pretty good reasons.
> 
> I think that's FUD too. That last patch had 6 lines or so of changes 
> to generic code, everything else was already merged.

Does that mean he should only dislike it a little because it's small? At
this stage I would hope he will at least tell you why it wasn't accepted,
since XFS is a desirable feature for many people (as evidence vendors
providing it).

I'd like XFS, I think it's a good feature politically, hopefully it will
not just drop just as it's becoming stable for non-critical production
use.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: XFS?

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 16:12, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> More to the point, a quick scan of LKML will show that there are fixes for
> ext3 and reisser on a regular basis, so one must assume that they don't
> always work as they should either. XFS is in a number of distributions,
> and is stable for users.

Thats never been the big concern. The problem has always been that XFS
was very invasive code so it might break stuff for people who dont
choose to use experimental xfs stuff. Thats slowly improving

Re: XFS?

[Eric Sandeen]

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 11:03, Alan Cox wrote:
> Thats never been the big concern. The problem has always been that XFS
> was very invasive code so it might break stuff for people who dont
> choose to use experimental xfs stuff. Thats slowly improving

Alan - 

The last patch Christoph posted against 2.5 is not the least bit 
invasive.  Excluding documentation and configuration files, these are
the changes:

o 1 new process flag:   +#define PF_FSTRANS 0x00100000
o 1 new CTL_VM name:    +       VM_PAGEBUF=18
o 1 new CTL_FS name:    +       FS_XFS=17
o 1 exported symbol:    +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mark_page_accessed);

and of course an addition to fs/Makefile:
+obj-$(CONFIG_XFS_FS)           += xfs/

That's it.  The rest is under fs/xfs.

(2.4 is more invasive, but this thread started out talking about XFS in
2.5).

-Eric
-- 
Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@sgi.com   SGI, Inc.         651-683-3102

Re: XFS?

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 19:55, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The last patch Christoph posted against 2.5 is not the least bit 
> invasive.  Excluding documentation and configuration files, these are
> the changes:

As I said its improving

XFS?

[khromy]

What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to finally
merge it?

-- 
L1:	khromy		;khromy(at)lnuxlab.ath.cx

Re: XFS?

[Wade]

I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.

khromy wrote:
> What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to 
> finally
> merge it?
>

Re: XFS?

[Tomas Szepe]

> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.

Fix your capslock and be so kind as to refrain from posting more comments
of such immense value here thankyou.

Re: XFS?

[Arador]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 06:08:06 +1000
Wade <darthwaderr@netscape.net> escribió:

> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF
> LINUS.

Well, you have the patches, so you can't say that you can't use it. If
you don't like you can make a branch from the 2.5 kernel including xfs.

But personally i don't mind if xfs is not included, I assume that
there's some reason for not merging it, and i'd be glad to hear the
reasons for not merging it, insteand of blaming to Linus "The evil
non-merger" Torvalds



> 
> khromy wrote:
> > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the
> > list but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be
> > done to finally
> > merge it?
> >
> 
> 
> -
> 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/

Re: XFS?

[Shawn]

Linus has proudly declared himself to be a non-patch accepting bastard many
times in the past.

This has the interesting side effect of spurring debate and flame wars
about the joys and horrors of
ac-rmap-xfs-O1-devfs-lvm-xfs-lowlat-preempt-blah blah patchsets. This is
a Good Thing(tm).

You should thank Linus for being Linus, and also thank those who
actively maintain alternate branches of the kernel.

On 09/09, Wade said something like:
> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
> 
> khromy wrote:
> > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to 
> > finally
> > merge it?

--
Shawn Leas
core@enodev.com

If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on
their feet, what happen if you strap toast on the back of a cat
and drop it?
						-- Stephen Wright

Re: XFS?

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:

> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.

If you think you can do things better you should fork Wadix ;)

Linus might not be the easiest user interface and I've had some
problems too in the past, but everybody will have to admit that
the current system just works in the long run.

cheers,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Spamtraps of the month:  september@surriel.com trac@trac.org

Re: XFS?

[Wade]

In the long run, for sure. I'm not saying Linus needs to be replaced, 
but his _manners_ could do with some work. Those XFS guys have worked 
quite hard to make the merge fairly painless, and Linus wont even 
comment (that I've seen, see 
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103118187002156&w=2).

BTW: I'm only a lurker, I don't even use XFS :-)

[ _XXX_ is (C) 2002 Linus Torvalds. ]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:
> 
> 
>>I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
> 
> 
> If you think you can do things better you should fork Wadix ;)
> 
> Linus might not be the easiest user interface and I've had some
> problems too in the past, but everybody will have to admit that
> the current system just works in the long run.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Rik

Re: XFS?

[Gerhard Mack]

Keep in mind Linus gets flooded by patches on a constant basis and also
needs to focus on getting core functions working again so I wouldn't be
supprised if he hasn't had time to deal with XFS yet.

Hes also known for just deleting his mail que when it gets overloaded so
he may not have even read the messages in question.

	Gerhard


On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:

> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:23:48 +1000
> From: Wade <darthwaderr@netscape.net>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: XFS?
>
> In the long run, for sure. I'm not saying Linus needs to be replaced,
> but his _manners_ could do with some work. Those XFS guys have worked
> quite hard to make the merge fairly painless, and Linus wont even
> comment (that I've seen, see
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103118187002156&w=2).
>
> BTW: I'm only a lurker, I don't even use XFS :-)
>
> [ _XXX_ is (C) 2002 Linus Torvalds. ]
>
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
> >
> >
> > If you think you can do things better you should fork Wadix ;)
> >
> > Linus might not be the easiest user interface and I've had some
> > problems too in the past, but everybody will have to admit that
> > the current system just works in the long run.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Rik
>
>
> -
> 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/
>

--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: XFS?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> finally merge it?

It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
a) doesn't always work like it should yet
b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for 
   pretty good reasons.

Go read the archives on that if you want more.

			Thunder
-- 
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-

Re: XFS?

[Joe Kellner]

Quoting Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org>:


> 
> It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> a) doesn't always work like it should yet

I use XFS on a number of production servers, and it has always served me well.
The only problem is of course getting a kernel that supports XFS. I'm glad many
of the more mainstream linux distributions are starting to have support for XFS
 support "out of the box", but I feel until it's in the mainline kernel many
people will never even have a chance to try it.










-------------------------------------------------
sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com