Re: XFS for 2.4

[Lawrence Walton <lawrence@the-penguin.otak.com>]

<snip>
> Even if I am a bit off-topic here, please reconsider your last sentence. Don't
> make people think that 2.6 is in a widely useable state right now. Just take a
> look at the history of 2.4. Don't forget 2.4 can be used in boxes beyond 4 GB
> only right _now_ (2.4.23), all previous versions fall completely apart on i386
> platform. 2.4 is right now nice, useable and pretty stable - and 2.6 has not
> even begun to see the real-and-ugly world yet. There will for sure be a lot of
> interesting test cases during the next months for 2.6, but there are quite an
> amount of people that need a real stable environment - and that's why they will
> have to use 2.4 for at least one year from now on.
> 
Ye gods I'm going to regret butting into this conversation but...

I have moved a couple servers successfully to 2.6.0-pre9, felt (over)
confident that 2.6.x would work on my busiest server. It was a mistake,
lightly loaded it worked great. As user logged in that morning the
server became unstable, processes started waiting forever and hanging,
imap mostly, later exim and openldap. I never reported it for lack of
good debugging info, I plan to take another wack at it in a month or so.


2.4.x is my only option, I would imagine I'm not in the minority here.
I do use XFS, not on this particular server but I do use it and would
like to see it included into 2.4.x for no other reason than 2.6.x is not
stable in all situations.

-- 
*--* Mail: lawrence@otak.com
*--* Voice: 425.739.4247
*--* Fax: 425.827.9577
*--* HTTP://the-penguin.otak.com/~lawrence
--------------------------------------
- - - - - - O t a k  i n c . - - - - -