xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: out of the tree compilation and 4KSTACKS

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: out of the tree compilation and 4KSTACKS
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:29:25 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050601040009.GA11354@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050531074820.GM8770@xxxxxxxxxxx> <462608.672469a40d5f4a17f7b1f43a4517535a.ANY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050531215402.GE23991@xxxxxxxxxxx> <477395.f3b7fdadc14ce50b8c44d1f319df1ab6.IBX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050601034202.GA31105@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20050601040009.GA11354@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:00:09PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:42:02AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > Sure, that's clear. What I mean is: If you turn on xfs in
> > > > RHEL4's kernel is it considered safe with 4KSTACKS?
> > > 
> > > It is on already on RHEL isn't it?
> >
> > No. That's the whole point of this exercise ;)
> 
> I'm saying I thought RH kernels defaulted to using CONFIG_4KSTACKS
> don't they?

Yes, they are.

> > The advantage is no xfs vs xfs.
> 
> When I talked (bitched?) to some RH people about the problems with XFS
> and 4KSTACKS they claimed that ext3 is faster than XFS is pretty much
> any meaningful benchmark on 8-CPU machines or smaller.

Sounds like you talked to Arjan. He does has radical views. The real
reason are (lack of) support resources for non-ext3 filesystems.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpHP6eJCVu0r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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