* Re: XFS?
@ 2002-09-12 15:27 Martin Knoblauch
2002-09-12 15:53 ` XFS? jbradford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Martin Knoblauch @ 2002-09-12 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jbradford; +Cc: linux-kernel
>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 15:27 XFS? Martin Knoblauch
@ 2002-09-12 15:53 ` jbradford
2002-09-12 17:06 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
2002-09-12 17:09 ` XFS? Bernd Petrovitsch
0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: jbradford @ 2002-09-12 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: martin.knoblauch; +Cc: linux-kernel
> >> 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 ? :-)
Sorry, I meant we should be wary about what is moved from being development code to non-development code in the stable kernel.
> In any case, one could always mark XFS as "experimental" for some time.
Exactly, I think we should.
The distributions will 'mirror' that, by including support, but not making it obvious unless you poke around looking for it - so it gets the new feature out to the more users, but doesn't present it as just another option for newbies to select without realising what they are doing.
> >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.
But Linux doesn't crash... :-)
John.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 15:53 ` XFS? jbradford
@ 2002-09-12 17:06 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-12 17:28 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
2002-09-12 17:09 ` XFS? Bernd Petrovitsch
1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-09-12 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jbradford; +Cc: martin.knoblauch, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> But Linux doesn't crash... :-)
I'm running 2.4.19-rc5-aa1 on reiserfs on some twenty workstations,
neither of which ever crashed...
Thunder
--
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 17:06 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-09-12 17:28 ` Joe Kellner
2002-09-12 17:44 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Joe Kellner @ 2002-09-12 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill; +Cc: linux-kernel
Quoting Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> > But Linux doesn't crash... :-)
>
> I'm running 2.4.19-rc5-aa1 on reiserfs on some twenty workstations,
> neither of which ever crashed...
>
Alot of hosting companies employ the "pull the plug" method of solving problems.
This isnt good on non journaling filesystems. (It's not good period, but thats
not going to change anytime soon).
-------------------------------------------------
sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 17:28 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
@ 2002-09-12 17:44 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-12 17:54 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-09-12 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Kellner; +Cc: Thunder from the hill, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Joe Kellner wrote:
> Alot of hosting companies employ the "pull the plug" method of solving
> problems. This isnt good on non journaling filesystems. (It's not good
> period, but thats not going to change anytime soon).
I don't see where reiserfs isn't journaling.
Thunder
--
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 15:53 ` XFS? jbradford
2002-09-12 17:06 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-09-12 17:09 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2002-09-12 17:45 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Bernd Petrovitsch @ 2002-09-12 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
[...]
>> sure, if you can live with the fsck time on your 200 GB (or bigger)
>> filesystem after the occasional crash.
>
>But Linux doesn't crash... :-)
Just pull the power cable out of your PC and see what happens.
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@gams.at
g.a.m.s gmbh Fax : +43 1 205255-900
Prinz-Eugen-Straße 8 A-1040 Vienna/Austria/Europe
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 17:09 ` XFS? Bernd Petrovitsch
@ 2002-09-12 17:45 ` Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-09-12 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bernd Petrovitsch; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >But Linux doesn't crash... :-)
>
> Just pull the power cable out of your PC and see what happens.
The UPS starts beeping.
Thunder
--
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
@ 2002-09-13 10:52 Kostadin Karaivanov
2002-09-13 10:57 ` XFS? Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Kostadin Karaivanov @ 2002-09-13 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
>I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
>many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
>filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.
LSM is mainstream now
OpenMosix si too intrusive (I think) as XFS _used_ to_ be_.....
>Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
>provide users with a usable, stable kernel.
>And if somebody doesn't like their way of work he is free to make it's own
>kernel tree.
>I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
>2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
>and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
>production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).
You missing the point again, "ready" does _not_ means "stable"
I use XFS on allmost all of my PC/Servers and I never ever lose a single dot
in any file on my XFS partitions
>And after all do you think that such kind of presure over kernel
>maintainers is the way of making free software.
Kostadin Karaivanov
Senior System Administrator @ Ministry Of Finace
tel: +359 2 98592062
larry@minfin.government.bg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 10:52 XFS? Kostadin Karaivanov
@ 2002-09-13 10:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2002-09-13 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kostadin Karaivanov; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:52:50PM +0300, Kostadin Karaivanov wrote:
> LSM is mainstream now
> OpenMosix si too intrusive (I think) as XFS _used_ to_ be_.....
Mosix is more intrusive then XFS ever was. Not to mention it's written in
an unportable way and integrated into the Linux enviroment very badly.
It doesn't look like the maintainers aim for integration, and even if they
did they have a long long way to get it polished up.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* XFS?
@ 2002-09-13 7:47 Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 9:32 ` XFS? Nero
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Ivanov @ 2002-09-13 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
veri low.
On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
JFS has the same problem.
With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
solve this problem at all.
The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
-----------------
Best Regards
Ivan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 7:47 XFS? Ivan Ivanov
@ 2002-09-13 9:32 ` Nero
2002-09-13 10:22 ` XFS? Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 9:53 ` XFS? Remco Post
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Nero @ 2002-09-13 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ivanov; +Cc: linux-kernel
Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
>
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
>
> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> solve this problem at all.
>
> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
>
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
This just is not the issue. If we only wanted filesystems which behaved
like ext2/3, we would only have ext2/3. The issue, if you have all
forgotten, is Linus not providing information on why XFS is a problem to
be merged. He asked them to make it easy to merge - they have done so.
Now they ask why the patch is ignored, and are promptly ignored further.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 9:32 ` XFS? Nero
@ 2002-09-13 10:22 ` Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 11:07 ` XFS? Filip Van Raemdonck
2002-09-13 12:42 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Ivanov @ 2002-09-13 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nero; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Nero wrote:
> Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> > I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> > filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> > crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
> >
> > XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> > etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> > veri low.
> >
> > On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> > machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
> >
> > With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> > is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> > JFS has the same problem.
> > With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> > solve this problem at all.
> >
> > The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
> >
> > So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> > spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> > it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> > And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
>
> This just is not the issue. If we only wanted filesystems which behaved
> like ext2/3, we would only have ext2/3. The issue, if you have all
> forgotten, is Linus not providing information on why XFS is a problem to
> be merged. He asked them to make it easy to merge - they have done so.
> Now they ask why the patch is ignored, and are promptly ignored further.
>
I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.
Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
provide users with a usable, stable kernel.
And if somebody doesn't like their way of work he is free to make it's own
kernel tree.
I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).
And after all do you think that such kind of presure over kernel
maintainers is the way of making free software.
--------------------
Cheers
Ivan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 10:22 ` XFS? Ivan Ivanov
@ 2002-09-13 11:07 ` Filip Van Raemdonck
2002-09-13 12:42 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Filip Van Raemdonck @ 2002-09-13 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 01:22:22PM +0300, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>
> I think that it is not fair to insist for merging of XFS only. There ara
> many other projects that are of bigger value for linux then iet another
> filesystem - RSBAC,OpenMosix,LSM,HTree and more.
And who are most likely far more intrusive than XFS is currently, or have
other issues. [1]
> Some people like Linus, Alan, Marchelo etc. have the responsibility to
> provide users with a usable, stable kernel.
So they mark XFS experimental, and unless the user configures for
experimental features to be asked for they won't even notice their presence.
> I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
> 2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
> and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
> production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).
So, you are not using ext2 then either? Since that can loose files, too, on
a crash. (I've actually even once seen a whole ext2 partition disappear
after a crash. Same for reiserfs, BTW)
Any fs can have bugs. Even while ext2 is indeed more likely to be the most
tested, it too can bite you sometimes. [1]
Regards,
Filip
[1] Actually I've had problems with dma timeouts resulting in ide hangs on
an ext2 system last week, and it too managed to lose a few files. Sure,
fsck picked up most of them, and none were critical, but it does prove
my point well enough.
--
We have joy, we have fun,
we have Linux on our Sun.
-- Andreas Tille
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 10:22 ` XFS? Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 11:07 ` XFS? Filip Van Raemdonck
@ 2002-09-13 12:42 ` Hans Reiser
1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Hans Reiser @ 2002-09-13 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ivanov; +Cc: Nero, linux-kernel
Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>
>
>
>
>I am not an expert, just a sysadmin, and I am testing XFS since kernel
>2.4.6 ( I am writing this mail from a test machine with kernel 2.4.18
>and XFS root filesystem ), and I also think that XFS is not ready for
>production ( I lost some unimportant files after a crash yesterday ).
>
>
>
This merely means that it should be flagged as experimental for a while.
There is no way a new filesystem can go into the Linux Kernel and not
have lots of bugs found by users during the first few months anyway,
however much we programmers might try to avoid it.
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 7:47 XFS? Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 9:32 ` XFS? Nero
@ 2002-09-13 9:53 ` Remco Post
2002-09-13 11:38 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Remco Post @ 2002-09-13 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On vrijdag, september 13, 2002, at 09:47 , Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by
> UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
>
Hmm, not entirely true. We run (C)XFS on Irix on our 1024 CPU SGI Origin
3800 box over here. Every few weeks the @$%#@ thing breaks, (CPU, bad
memory that kind of things). This takes down at least one partition of
the system, and sometimes a filesystem (or all filesystems). Without the
journaling features of XFS we'd spend all of our uptime fsck-ing. What
I'm saying, big box with lots of parts has a lot of parts that could
possible break....
> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire
> file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4
> will
> solve this problem at all.
>
Of course, loosing a file during a crash is not nice, but often the
whole job has to be rerun, at least from it's last checkpoint, so
loosing one file is not a problem. The same is true for most of the
desktop work, it's much clearer to a user not to find his/her file in
place, than a 'maybe corrupted' version.
> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
>
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
>
A few 1000 $ do not buy you an IRIX or a AIX box with support. So,
spending that money wisely buys you a nice Linux box, decent hardware
and a decent FS. Even in our very well protected environment, the
no-break powersupply is able to fail in the most horrible way( thoiug
that happend only once in over 20 years), having a robust FS is a must.
There is a world of possibilities between spending $200 at Walmart for a
low-end pc and >>$5k for your low-end IBM box. For 'small' servers that
people will want to depend on, a decent FS is a must.
Now if XFS was as non-intrusive as FreeVFS, it probbably whould have
been part of the main stream a long time ago. Unfortunately the XFS
people wanted to provide functions not in the VFS layer... Now maybe if
we cut that problem in two parts: filesystem and functional (dmapi
IIRC), the intrusion into the VFS layer would not be taken as bad as it
had been as it has been in the past....
- ---
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Remco Post
SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing Tel. +31 20 592 8008 Fax. +31 20 668 3167
PGP keys at http://home.sara.nl/~remco/keys.asc
"I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer
industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer
industry
didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQE9gbWYBIoCv9yTlOwRAuZNAJ9G+HxDINeeeT0QTZn7Ly1tpqHXAwCeLxCd
OMWrvLeT643az91jwHEq240=
=zAGH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 7:47 XFS? Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 9:32 ` XFS? Nero
2002-09-13 9:53 ` XFS? Remco Post
@ 2002-09-13 11:38 ` Hans Reiser
2002-09-13 12:47 ` XFS? Jesse Pollard
2002-09-13 13:33 ` XFS? Ian S. Nelson
4 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Hans Reiser @ 2002-09-13 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ivanov; +Cc: linux-kernel
Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
>solve this problem at all.
>
We have a data ordered patch that is waiting for 2.4.21pre1.
V4 uses fully atomic transactions for every fs modifying syscall
including data, and still goes way faster than v3....
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 7:47 XFS? Ivan Ivanov
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-09-13 11:38 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
@ 2002-09-13 12:47 ` Jesse Pollard
2002-09-13 13:33 ` XFS? Ian S. Nelson
4 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Pollard @ 2002-09-13 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ivanov, linux-kernel
On Friday 13 September 2002 02:47 am, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
>
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
>
> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
Also note, it has been my experience that the blocks allocated to the file are
also lost. It takes a fsck operation to recover that.
I had a raided XFS filesystem that lost power at 3am every night... IRIX
panic/crash/dead. After the third one in a row half of the raid volume was
missing. I noticed that when the aviailable space was exausted. It took an
xfs_repair to rebuild the free space. (power failure due to overloaded circuit
and somebody turned on a monitor...)
> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> solve this problem at all.
>
> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
>
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
>
> -----------------
> Best Regards
> Ivan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 7:47 XFS? Ivan Ivanov
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2002-09-13 12:47 ` XFS? Jesse Pollard
@ 2002-09-13 13:33 ` Ian S. Nelson
4 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Ian S. Nelson @ 2002-09-13 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Ivanov, linux-kernel
Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
>filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
>crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
>
>XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
>etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
>veri low.
>
>On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
>machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
>With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
>is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
>
>
This isn't true. I picked XFS as the filesystem for Echostar's DP-721
partially because when I power cycle tested them all it seemed to behave
in the most predictable way. The meta data always seemed to be correct
and the unflushed blocks were screwed up and *usually pointed to null
blocks, which is what I expect. If we're talking about a tiny little
file then you might lose the whole thing, it's all an unflushed block.
Since then I've seen the product in the field have the plug pulled
multiple times during a PVR recording and you lose the time during the
boot but just about everything else is there.
* I think after hundreds of reboots you could screw that up, we fixed it
by doing a repair during the boot periodically which was still very very
fast compared to a fsck. Also, not terribly important since a few
blocks is only a couple seconds of recording.
I'm not entirely sure what the correct semantics are for losing power
during a write, with some of the Reiserfs cuts I was looking at (circa
kernel 2.3.99) when you pulled the plug the last blocks committed would
be garbage. I remember a thread that said something to the extent the
the DMAs keep going for a few milliseconds after power is cut but the
data they transfer is trash; I don't know if I believe that or not. It
was very consistent though, it could be that the metadata just pointed
to blocks on the disk that didn't have zeros in them or something.
Still, it didn't trash the whole file, it did it mostly correct
assuming that you detect that there was a crash and intervene; your logs
or whatever could have some garbage but everything keeps running for the
most part.
I really don't know how you call a filesystem good or not. I think XFS
isn't in yet simply because it's big and Linus may not have had the time
yet to read it all. XFS, JFS, Reiserfs, and even EXT3 are way too big
to just test in a lab (Alan's house?) and call "bug free, ready for
production" You put them in, call them experimental, more of us hammer
on them, and they grow into trusted. From my personal experience, all
of them have been pretty good and I haven't seen major problems with any
of them in a long time and I did try to do some rigorous scientific
testing of them all, I'm not just spouting hearsay.
Ian Nelson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3D80CCEF.7070007@tmsusa.com>]
[parent not found: <200209121553.g8CFrrEh003646@dstl.gov.uk>]
* Re: XFS?
[not found] <200209121553.g8CFrrEh003646@dstl.gov.uk>
@ 2002-09-12 16:03 ` Tony Gale
2002-09-13 5:58 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Tony Gale @ 2002-09-12 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jbradford; +Cc: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 16:53, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> > In any case, one could always mark XFS as "experimental" for some time.
>
> Exactly, I think we should.
>
I disagree. Ask the people who are using it in anger (which I am) and I
think you'll find they don't think the code quality warants an
"experimental" tag.
>
> > >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.
> >
So does XFS. It just happens to be measured in IRIX years.
-tony
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 350 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 16:03 ` XFS? Tony Gale
@ 2002-09-13 5:58 ` Tomas Szepe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Tomas Szepe @ 2002-09-13 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Gale; +Cc: jbradford, linux-kernel
> > > >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.
> So does XFS. It just happens to be measured in IRIX years.
Don't forget you're talking four megabytes of ported code.
By the way, just out of curiosity, would someone kindly have a go at
summarizing what's going on inside XFS that would justify its sources
being almost six times the size of reiserfs? I have read the XFS
feature list carefully, however, I still fail to see where the great
difference is.
T.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
@ 2002-09-12 13:54 Martin Knoblauch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Martin Knoblauch @ 2002-09-12 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lord; +Cc: linux-kernel
>> > So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
>>
>> Don't know about RedHat & others, but SuSE _does_ ship XFS.
>>
>
>
>I should probably keep out of the discussion and I am not presenting
>this as an argument for inclusion, but for an incomplete list of XFS
>users and distribution including it look here:
>
>
>http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/xfs_users.html
>
>
>Steve
Steve,
[shameless plug to follow]
you may add MSC.linux (http://www.msclinux.com) to your list. We
support it since day one. Probably not a mainstream reference, but we
are working in an application field that can make good use of XFS.
[end of shamelse plug]
Your list of users is great, but without mainstream support its growth
will be severely limited.
OK, but I understand people are working to change that for 2.6 :-)
Cheers
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
@ 2002-09-12 13:42 Martin Knoblauch
2002-09-12 15:00 ` XFS? jbradford
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Martin Knoblauch @ 2002-09-12 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
>> So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
>>
>> john
>>
>
>Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since 8.0.
>AFAIK, Suse
>and Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now too.
for what its worth, MSC.Linux supports it on IA32 and IA64 :-)
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.
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 13:42 XFS? Martin Knoblauch
@ 2002-09-12 15:00 ` jbradford
2002-09-13 11:53 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: jbradford @ 2002-09-12 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
> 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.
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.
John.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-12 15:00 ` XFS? jbradford
@ 2002-09-13 11:53 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-09-13 12:27 ` XFS? jbradford
2002-09-13 13:21 ` XFS? jlnance
0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Bill Davidsen @ 2002-09-13 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jbradford; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> > 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.
Given that the IDE code in 2.5 wrote random bad data not only in the
mounted filesystems but on other partitions and even drives, if we are
dropping things which have an unreasonable track record, we should drop
IDE for sure ;-)
This is a development kernel, the rules for what goes in should be far
more open than the stable series. IMHO both JFS (AIX) and XFS (IRIX)
should be in, because they will not be solid until users actually use
them, and better that be in a development kernel.
>
> 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.
One might note that both JFS and XFS have been around since xiafs was the
Linux f/s of choice. It's all relative. If you want old and grotty, go
back to minix f/s.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 11:53 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
@ 2002-09-13 12:27 ` jbradford
2002-09-13 13:21 ` XFS? jlnance
1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: jbradford @ 2002-09-13 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
> > > 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.
>
> Given that the IDE code in 2.5 wrote random bad data not only in the
> mounted filesystems but on other partitions and even drives, if we are
> dropping things which have an unreasonable track record, we should drop
> IDE for sure ;-)
Things have certainly changed, (for better or worse, I'm not sure), since the 1.3.X days when a development kernel was generally still pretty stable.
> This is a development kernel, the rules for what goes in should be far
> more open than the stable series. IMHO both JFS (AIX) and XFS (IRIX)
> should be in, because they will not be solid until users actually use
> them, and better that be in a development kernel.
Totally agreed. I was talking about the stable kernel.
> > 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.
>
> One might note that both JFS and XFS have been around since xiafs was the
> Linux f/s of choice.
Not for Linux, though - I'm talking about years of Linux stability.
> It's all relative. If you want old and grotty, go back to minix f/s.
That's why I qualified my above comment with 'is a very capable filesystem' :-).
I know what you mean, but I was just pointing out that EXT-2 balances proven reliability in the stable kernel, features, and performance VERY well, infact what other OS family can make that claim? BSD is the only one I can think of. Oh, sure FAT has been around forever, but it's somewhat lacking in the features department.
John.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-13 11:53 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
2002-09-13 12:27 ` XFS? jbradford
@ 2002-09-13 13:21 ` jlnance
1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: jlnance @ 2002-09-13 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:53:31AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> This is a development kernel, the rules for what goes in should be far
> more open than the stable series. IMHO both JFS (AIX) and XFS (IRIX)
> should be in, because they will not be solid until users actually use
> them, and better that be in a development kernel.
JFS is in isnt it?
> One might note that both JFS and XFS have been around since xiafs was the
> Linux f/s of choice. It's all relative. If you want old and grotty, go
> back to minix f/s.
Ah, you remember xiafs. Perhaps the first big flamewar on the kernel
mailing list.
Jim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1059487013@toto.iv>]
* Re: XFS?
[not found] <1059487013@toto.iv>
@ 2002-09-11 0:31 ` Peter Chubb
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Peter Chubb @ 2002-09-11 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Kellner; +Cc: John Alvord, linux-kernel
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Kellner <jdk@kingsmeadefarm.com> writes:
>> So does Redhat/Suse/??? ship XFS yet?
>>
>> john
>>
Joe> Mandrake has had XFS support in the default boot kernel since
Joe> 8.0. AFAIK, Suse and Slackware also have XFS capable kernels now
Joe> too.
FWIW so does debian.
--
Dr Peter Chubb peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all almost the same.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20020909193820.GA2007@lnuxlab.ath.cx.suse.lists.linux.kernel>]
* XFS?
@ 2002-09-09 19:38 khromy
[not found] ` <3D7CFEE5.3030600@netscape.net>
2002-09-09 21:00 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: khromy @ 2002-09-09 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to finally
merge it?
--
L1: khromy ;khromy(at)lnuxlab.ath.cx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3D7CFEE5.3030600@netscape.net>]
* Re: XFS?
[not found] ` <3D7CFEE5.3030600@netscape.net>
@ 2002-09-09 20:08 ` Wade
2002-09-09 20:16 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Wade @ 2002-09-09 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
khromy wrote:
> What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> finally
> merge it?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 20:08 ` XFS? Wade
@ 2002-09-09 20:16 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-09-09 20:43 ` XFS? Arador
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Tomas Szepe @ 2002-09-09 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wade; +Cc: linux-kernel
> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
Fix your capslock and be so kind as to refrain from posting more comments
of such immense value here thankyou.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 20:08 ` XFS? Wade
2002-09-09 20:16 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
@ 2002-09-09 20:43 ` Arador
2002-09-09 21:18 ` XFS? Shawn
2002-09-09 22:31 ` XFS? Rik van Riel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Arador @ 2002-09-09 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wade; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 06:08:06 +1000
Wade <darthwaderr@netscape.net> escribió:
> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF
> LINUS.
Well, you have the patches, so you can't say that you can't use it. If
you don't like you can make a branch from the 2.5 kernel including xfs.
But personally i don't mind if xfs is not included, I assume that
there's some reason for not merging it, and i'd be glad to hear the
reasons for not merging it, insteand of blaming to Linus "The evil
non-merger" Torvalds
>
> khromy wrote:
> > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the
> > list but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be
> > done to finally
> > merge it?
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 20:08 ` XFS? Wade
2002-09-09 20:16 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
2002-09-09 20:43 ` XFS? Arador
@ 2002-09-09 21:18 ` Shawn
2002-09-09 22:31 ` XFS? Rik van Riel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Shawn @ 2002-09-09 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wade; +Cc: linux-kernel
Linus has proudly declared himself to be a non-patch accepting bastard many
times in the past.
This has the interesting side effect of spurring debate and flame wars
about the joys and horrors of
ac-rmap-xfs-O1-devfs-lvm-xfs-lowlat-preempt-blah blah patchsets. This is
a Good Thing(tm).
You should thank Linus for being Linus, and also thank those who
actively maintain alternate branches of the kernel.
On 09/09, Wade said something like:
> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
>
> khromy wrote:
> > What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> > but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> > finally
> > merge it?
--
Shawn Leas
core@enodev.com
If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on
their feet, what happen if you strap toast on the back of a cat
and drop it?
-- Stephen Wright
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 20:08 ` XFS? Wade
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-09-09 21:18 ` XFS? Shawn
@ 2002-09-09 22:31 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-10 6:23 ` XFS? Wade
3 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-09-09 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wade; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:
> I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
If you think you can do things better you should fork Wadix ;)
Linus might not be the easiest user interface and I've had some
problems too in the past, but everybody will have to admit that
the current system just works in the long run.
cheers,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 22:31 ` XFS? Rik van Riel
@ 2002-09-10 6:23 ` Wade
2002-09-10 13:24 ` XFS? Gerhard Mack
0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Wade @ 2002-09-10 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
In the long run, for sure. I'm not saying Linus needs to be replaced,
but his _manners_ could do with some work. Those XFS guys have worked
quite hard to make the merge fairly painless, and Linus wont even
comment (that I've seen, see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103118187002156&w=2).
BTW: I'm only a lurker, I don't even use XFS :-)
[ _XXX_ is (C) 2002 Linus Torvalds. ]
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:
>
>
>>I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
>
>
> If you think you can do things better you should fork Wadix ;)
>
> Linus might not be the easiest user interface and I've had some
> problems too in the past, but everybody will have to admit that
> the current system just works in the long run.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-10 6:23 ` XFS? Wade
@ 2002-09-10 13:24 ` Gerhard Mack
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Gerhard Mack @ 2002-09-10 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wade; +Cc: linux-kernel
Keep in mind Linus gets flooded by patches on a constant basis and also
needs to focus on getting core functions working again so I wouldn't be
supprised if he hasn't had time to deal with XFS yet.
Hes also known for just deleting his mail que when it gets overloaded so
he may not have even read the messages in question.
Gerhard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:23:48 +1000
> From: Wade <darthwaderr@netscape.net>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: XFS?
>
> In the long run, for sure. I'm not saying Linus needs to be replaced,
> but his _manners_ could do with some work. Those XFS guys have worked
> quite hard to make the merge fairly painless, and Linus wont even
> comment (that I've seen, see
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103118187002156&w=2).
>
> BTW: I'm only a lurker, I don't even use XFS :-)
>
> [ _XXX_ is (C) 2002 Linus Torvalds. ]
>
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Wade wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've noticed this too. And I must say, ITS QUITE FUCKING RUDE OF LINUS.
> >
> >
> > If you think you can do things better you should fork Wadix ;)
> >
> > Linus might not be the easiest user interface and I've had some
> > problems too in the past, but everybody will have to admit that
> > the current system just works in the long run.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Rik
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Gerhard Mack
gmack@innerfire.net
<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 19:38 XFS? khromy
[not found] ` <3D7CFEE5.3030600@netscape.net>
@ 2002-09-09 21:00 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-09 22:29 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-09-09 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: khromy; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi,
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, khromy wrote:
> What's up with XFS in linux-2.5? I've seen some patches sent to the list
> but I havn't seen any replies from linus.. What needs to be done to
> finally merge it?
It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
a) doesn't always work like it should yet
b) involves some changes which Linus doesn't like in particular, for
pretty good reasons.
Go read the archives on that if you want more.
Thunder
--
--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-
--./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS?
2002-09-09 21:00 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-09-09 22:29 ` Joe Kellner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Joe Kellner @ 2002-09-09 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill; +Cc: linux-kernel
Quoting Thunder from the hill <thunder@lightweight.ods.org>:
>
> It has been stated quite regularly that XFS
> a) doesn't always work like it should yet
I use XFS on a number of production servers, and it has always served me well.
The only problem is of course getting a kernel that supports XFS. I'm glad many
of the more mainstream linux distributions are starting to have support for XFS
support "out of the box", but I feel until it's in the mainline kernel many
people will never even have a chance to try it.
-------------------------------------------------
sent via KingsMeade secure webmail http://www.kingsmeadefarm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-13 15:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-09-12 15:27 XFS? Martin Knoblauch
2002-09-12 15:53 ` XFS? jbradford
2002-09-12 17:06 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
2002-09-12 17:28 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
2002-09-12 17:44 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
2002-09-12 17:54 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
2002-09-12 17:09 ` XFS? Bernd Petrovitsch
2002-09-12 17:45 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-13 10:52 XFS? Kostadin Karaivanov
2002-09-13 10:57 ` XFS? Christoph Hellwig
2002-09-13 7:47 XFS? Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 9:32 ` XFS? Nero
2002-09-13 10:22 ` XFS? Ivan Ivanov
2002-09-13 11:07 ` XFS? Filip Van Raemdonck
2002-09-13 12:42 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
2002-09-13 9:53 ` XFS? Remco Post
2002-09-13 11:38 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
2002-09-13 12:47 ` XFS? Jesse Pollard
2002-09-13 13:33 ` XFS? Ian S. Nelson
[not found] <3D80CCEF.7070007@tmsusa.com>
2002-09-12 17:53 ` XFS? jbradford
[not found] <200209121553.g8CFrrEh003646@dstl.gov.uk>
2002-09-12 16:03 ` XFS? Tony Gale
2002-09-13 5:58 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
2002-09-12 13:54 XFS? Martin Knoblauch
2002-09-12 13:42 XFS? Martin Knoblauch
2002-09-12 15:00 ` XFS? jbradford
2002-09-13 11:53 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
2002-09-13 12:27 ` XFS? jbradford
2002-09-13 13:21 ` XFS? jlnance
[not found] <1059487013@toto.iv>
2002-09-11 0:31 ` XFS? Peter Chubb
[not found] <20020909193820.GA2007@lnuxlab.ath.cx.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209091457590.3793-100000@hawkeye.luckynet.adm.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2002-09-09 21:12 ` XFS? Andi Kleen
2002-09-09 21:20 ` XFS? Shawn
2002-09-09 21:27 ` XFS? Robert Love
2002-09-10 17:15 ` XFS? Mike Galbraith
2002-09-10 19:23 ` XFS? Shawn
2002-09-10 19:29 ` XFS? Robert Love
2002-09-10 19:33 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
2002-09-11 0:33 ` XFS? Bryan Whitehead
2002-09-10 20:06 ` XFS? John Alvord
2002-09-10 20:17 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
2002-09-10 20:17 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
2002-09-10 20:26 ` XFS? David Lang
2002-09-10 20:31 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
2002-09-11 2:34 ` XFS? Bernd Eckenfels
2002-09-10 22:18 ` XFS? Nick LeRoy
2002-09-10 20:34 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
2002-09-10 21:01 ` XFS? Steve Lord
2002-09-11 8:43 ` XFS? jw schultz
2002-09-11 15:20 ` XFS? Nick LeRoy
2002-09-11 17:08 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
2002-09-11 18:24 ` XFS? Gerhard Mack
2002-09-11 18:54 ` XFS? Lorenzo Allegrucci
2002-09-12 18:25 ` XFS? Bryan Whitehead
2002-09-12 18:33 ` XFS? Nikita Danilov
2002-09-13 11:44 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
2002-09-13 12:44 ` XFS? Hans Reiser
2002-09-13 15:47 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
2002-09-12 23:38 ` XFS? Samuel Flory
2002-09-11 21:21 ` XFS? jw schultz
2002-09-11 22:41 ` XFS? Nick LeRoy
2002-09-11 23:01 ` XFS? Robert Varga
2002-09-12 2:48 ` XFS? jw schultz
2002-09-11 4:56 ` XFS? Mike Galbraith
2002-09-11 14:55 ` XFS? Shawn
2002-09-11 17:52 ` XFS? Mike Galbraith
2002-09-11 15:12 ` XFS? Bill Davidsen
2002-09-11 16:03 ` XFS? Alan Cox
2002-09-11 18:55 ` XFS? Eric Sandeen
2002-09-11 21:37 ` XFS? Alan Cox
2002-09-09 19:38 XFS? khromy
[not found] ` <3D7CFEE5.3030600@netscape.net>
2002-09-09 20:08 ` XFS? Wade
2002-09-09 20:16 ` XFS? Tomas Szepe
2002-09-09 20:43 ` XFS? Arador
2002-09-09 21:18 ` XFS? Shawn
2002-09-09 22:31 ` XFS? Rik van Riel
2002-09-10 6:23 ` XFS? Wade
2002-09-10 13:24 ` XFS? Gerhard Mack
2002-09-09 21:00 ` XFS? Thunder from the hill
2002-09-09 22:29 ` XFS? Joe Kellner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).