xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What is needed for a stable 2.4 based system?

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: What is needed for a stable 2.4 based system?
From: Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:16:05 +0100
Cc: Rainer Krienke <krienke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302100707170.20309-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from sandeen@xxxxxxx on Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:08:32AM -0600
References: <200302101000.22190.krienke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302100707170.20309-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:08:32AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> For starters, the patch you downloaded is a development snapshot, so if
> it's stable, you're just lucky - it has not undergone extensive testing.

Is it really that bad? I'm in the process of setting up a server with
~2.5 TB of XFS storage, and was just about to go for the linux-2.4-xfs
cvs-tree. Plain 2.4.19 woun't do for me, since there's a hard lockup
bug in the tg3 driver that wasn't fixed before 2.4.20rc3:

        http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0211.3/0167.html

and this is exactly the hardware I'm planning on running my storage
from.

I've had the impression that the cvs-tree was purely a bugfix only
tree, and that it should be as safe as the kernel.org tree. Is that not true?


  -jf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>