Steve Wolfe wrote:
> I'd just like to add, for the record, that while I really do love XFS,
> because of things like the above statement from Steve Lord, I really
> can't use it on my production machines until it is tied into the regular
> kernel tree.
If you stick with select, well-tested kernels, you shouldn't have
any issues. I've learned *NOT* to use the latest kernel from
experience dating back to 2.0. I'd rather "hold back" and use
RedHat/SGI release kernels on most of my systems.
I also feel that XFS is more stable than Ext2/Ext3 on kernel 2.4,
because of all the testing SGI does before putting a version number
on it. Understand I was a big time adopter of Ext3 under 2.2.
While this may no longer be true as of newer kernels (2.4.6+???), it
definately was as of 2.4.3 when XFS 1.0.1 was released -- at least
in my file server trials for NFS/SMB.
The fact that it's got POSIX ACL support, including Samba 2.2
integration, as well as official Quota support tells me its better
supported and tested than some other JFS'. Even IBM's JFS, unless I
am mistake, seems to be lacking in a lot of basic support, like for
NFS and quotas. And I still see people having ReiserFS issues with
non-Linux NFS clients (anyone not having any issues?).
I know most people don't care about such things, but I do for my
Over two dozen systems with XFS 1.0.1, no data loss
Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx chat:thebs413
Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com