Re: XFS?

[Martin Knoblauch <martin.knoblauch@mscsoftware.com>]

>> 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