* XFS for 2.4 @ 2003-12-01 6:20 Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 9:24 ` Jens Axboe ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-01 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs Hi Marcelo, Please do a bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS cheers. -- Nathan linux-2.4+coreXFS updates the following files: Documentation/Changes | 16 ++ Documentation/Configure.help | 84 +++++++++++++ Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX | 2 Documentation/filesystems/xfs.txt | 226 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- MAINTAINERS | 8 + drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c | 3 fs/Config.in | 7 + fs/Makefile | 4 fs/buffer.c | 59 ++++++++- fs/inode.c | 46 +++---- fs/namei.c | 13 +- fs/open.c | 13 ++ include/linux/dqblk_xfs.h | 9 - include/linux/fs.h | 50 +++++++- include/linux/posix_acl_xattr.h | 67 ++++++++++ include/linux/sched.h | 1 kernel/ksyms.c | 12 + mm/filemap.c | 63 +++++++++- 18 files changed, 618 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) through these ChangeSets: <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/24 1.1183.1.1) VFS support for filesystems which implement POSIX ACLs. This involves an inode flag which directs the VFS to skip application of the umask so that the filesystem ACL code can do this according to the POSIX rules, and a new header file defining the contents of the 2 system ACL extended attributes. This is a backport from 2.6. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1194) Fix utimes(2) and immutable/append-only files. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1195) Remove some unused macros and related comment from the XFS quota header. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1196) Add a process flag to identify a process performing a transaction. Used by XFS and backported from 2.6. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1197) Support for delayed allocation. Used by XFS and backported from 2.6. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1198) Provide a simple try-lock based dirty page flushing routine. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1199) Provide an iget variant without unlocking the inode and without the read_inode call (iget_locked). Used by XFS and backported from 2.6. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/26 1.1200) Export several kernel symbols used by the XFS filesystem. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/26 1.1201) Add XFS documentation and incorporate XFS into the kernel build. <nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/12/01 1.1202.1.1) [XFS] Document the XFS noikeep option, make ikeep the default. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-01 9:24 ` Jens Axboe 2003-12-01 9:44 ` Stefan Smietanowski 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum 2 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-12-01 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > > Please do a > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS Where can these be found as a unified diff? It's quite bothersome to have to pull a changeset just to review it (cloning a kernel tree first), not to mention space intensive. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 9:24 ` Jens Axboe @ 2003-12-01 9:44 ` Stefan Smietanowski 2003-12-01 9:45 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Stefan Smietanowski @ 2003-12-01 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > >>Hi Marcelo, >> >>Please do a >> >> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS >> >>This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting >>the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, >>then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) >> >> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS > > > Where can these be found as a unified diff? It's quite bothersome to > have to pull a changeset just to review it (cloning a kernel tree > first), not to mention space intensive. > There was a mail announcing split-patches for 2.4.23 five hours before this mail. The mail was from Keith Owens but here's the link from it: ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/patches/2.4.23 for the 2.4.23 patches. // Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 9:44 ` Stefan Smietanowski @ 2003-12-01 9:45 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-12-01 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Smietanowski Cc: Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Stefan Smietanowski wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 01 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > >>Hi Marcelo, > >> > >>Please do a > >> > >> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > >> > >>This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > >>the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > >>then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > >> > >> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS > > > > > >Where can these be found as a unified diff? It's quite bothersome to > >have to pull a changeset just to review it (cloning a kernel tree > >first), not to mention space intensive. > > > > There was a mail announcing split-patches for 2.4.23 five hours before > this mail. The mail was from Keith Owens but here's the link from it: > > ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/patches/2.4.23 for the 2.4.23 patches. Great, thanks. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 9:24 ` Jens Axboe @ 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott ` (2 more replies) 2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum 2 siblings, 3 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-01 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > > Please do a > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS Nathan, I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature. 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 22:20 ` Larry McVoy 2003-12-02 11:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 0:51 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter 2 siblings, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-01 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:06:14PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > Please do a > > > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > > > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > > the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > > > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS > > Nathan, > > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature. > > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. > Hi Marcelo, Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems. There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!) Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should be no surprises. Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks (especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged now). To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to, etc, etc. Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts. >From discussions with distributors, a stable 2.6 distribution will be many months after 2.6.0 is officially released, so these issues are not going to go away anytime soon. So, please merge XFS this time round - its actively developed, has a large installed user base, and has been maintained outside of 2.4 for a long time. We have waited patiently as each release goes by for you to give us the nod, and have been knocked back on a number of occasions while various other merges are being done. cheers. -- Nathan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-01 22:20 ` Larry McVoy 2003-12-02 0:23 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-02 11:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti 1 sibling, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-12-01 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:10:58AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > > Nathan, > > > > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature. > > > > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > Please reconsider I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that. However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong. Have you spoken with the people who maintain the generic parts of the VFS layer that you want to change? If those people were in the list of people saying "XFS should go in" then I think you'd get a lot farther. It's great that there are XFS users but the users should not make the add it or not add it decision, the people who maintain those interfaces which are generic should make that decision. Don't you agree? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 22:20 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-12-02 0:23 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-02 11:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-02 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-xfs Hello Larry, On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:20:25PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that. > > However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer > said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be > stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong. I must have missed that mail from Dave - or perhaps its still in flight to me. If you're refering to his "super-maintainence mode" comment, I don't believe there was any specific comments relating to XFS there (and XFS on 2.4 is in maintenance mode, has been for a long time). I also have mail from Marcelo saying he would look at merging XFS in 2.4.24-pre (back when we last sent it, in 2.4.23-pre) ... so, obviously I'm a little confused by this turn of events. > Have you spoken with the people who maintain the generic parts of the > VFS layer that you want to change? If those people were in the list of > people saying "XFS should go in" then I think you'd get a lot farther. That level of discussion with other kernel coders, and extensive review _has_ happened, in many cases _years_ ago now - this stuff has all been merged in 2.5 for ages. I wouldn't expect discussion from other filesystem people at this stage - it is all old news to them. > ... the people who maintain those interfaces which > are generic should make that decision. Don't you agree? Of course, and they have agreed that these are the way the changes should be made - if you look at 2.6 you will see these changes all merged there, a long time ago. As I said, there is nothing new or surprising here, and the changes are small and such that the other filesystems are unaffected. cheers. -- Nathan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 0:23 ` Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-02 11:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 18:05 ` Austin Gonyou ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > Hello Larry, > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:20:25PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > I have no idea if XFS should or should not go in, I'm not commenting on that. > > > > However, having a bunch of XFS users say "put it in" when the maintainer > > said no, DaveM said no, and no other file system people seem to be > > stepping up to the bat with a review and a nod seems wrong. > > I must have missed that mail from Dave - or perhaps its still > in flight to me. If you're refering to his "super-maintainence > mode" comment, I don't believe there was any specific comments > relating to XFS there (and XFS on 2.4 is in maintenance mode, > has been for a long time). > > I also have mail from Marcelo saying he would look at merging XFS > in 2.4.24-pre (back when we last sent it, in 2.4.23-pre) ... so, > obviously I'm a little confused by this turn of events. Nathan, Yes, I indeed told you "resent me for 2.4.24-pre". I have changed my mind. Sorry for the trouble that caused you. > That level of discussion with other kernel coders, and extensive > review _has_ happened, in many cases _years_ ago now - this stuff > has all been merged in 2.5 for ages. I wouldn't expect discussion > from other filesystem people at this stage - it is all old news to > them. > > > ... the people who maintain those interfaces which > > are generic should make that decision. Don't you agree? > > Of course, and they have agreed that these are the way the changes > should be made - if you look at 2.6 you will see these changes all > merged there, a long time ago. As I said, there is nothing new or > surprising here, and the changes are small and such that the other > filesystems are unaffected. A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with them on the development tree. My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better". Its much faster, much cleaner. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 11:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 18:05 ` Austin Gonyou 2003-12-02 19:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-12-03 19:01 ` bill davidsen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Austin Gonyou @ 2003-12-02 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel, XFS List On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:22, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > [...] > My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much > better". > Its much faster, much cleaner. I agree with this, even in spite of my earlier arguments. I do like 2.6, but I think there are some valid points listed recently for 2.4 inclusion. I might just be an end-user, but I do appreciate XFS for what it is, and have been using it for a while now. It just seems like natural inclusion at this point almost "just makes sense." -- Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com> Coremetrics, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 11:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 18:05 ` Austin Gonyou @ 2003-12-02 19:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-12-02 20:05 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 20:16 ` Lawrence Walton 2003-12-03 19:01 ` bill davidsen 2 siblings, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-12-02 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: nathans, lm, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:22:48 -0200 (BRST) Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote: > [...] > A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just > simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with > them on the development tree. > > My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better". > Its much faster, much cleaner. 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. This is no vote for or against XFS-inclusion, I don't know the thing at all. I only want to state: developer environment is pretty different from the real world, so don't dump 2.4 too early please. Regards, Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 19:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-12-02 20:05 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 20:16 ` Lawrence Walton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephan von Krawczynski Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, nathans, lm, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:22:48 -0200 (BRST) > Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just > > simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with > > them on the development tree. > > > > My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better". > > Its much faster, much cleaner. > > 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. > > This is no vote for or against XFS-inclusion, I don't know the thing at all. I > only want to state: developer environment is pretty different from the real > world, so don't dump 2.4 too early please. I'm not dumping 2.4. It will enter "maintenance-only" mode in 2.4.25. It will be update as long as there are problems in it, but no more features will creep in. As for XFS, Christoph will review the patches and tell me what he thinks. Also other people mailed me saying they reviewed the code. That makes me more comfortable with merging the XFS modifications. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 19:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-12-02 20:05 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 20:16 ` Lawrence Walton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Walton @ 2003-12-02 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel <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 . - - - - - ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 11:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 18:05 ` Austin Gonyou 2003-12-02 19:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski @ 2003-12-03 19:01 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 20:45 ` Willy Tarreau 2 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@logos.cnet>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote: | A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just | simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with | them on the development tree. | | My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better". | Its much faster, much cleaner. Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year. As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other people's data. I think 2.6 has new features, it is more scalable, but other than threads I don't see any huge performance gains. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 19:01 ` bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 20:45 ` Willy Tarreau 2003-12-03 21:17 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-04 0:34 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-03 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bill davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote: > Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even > though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in > that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting > a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality > until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until > it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors > test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to > be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year. There even are people using 2.2 on production and/or desktop computers. I know some of them. Many people jumped from 2.2 to 2.4 because of USB, but since it was backported into 2.2.18, many people prefered to stick to 2.2. > As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to > apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading > there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't > seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other > people's data. I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete. I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster. For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what they really do with it and what they feel. Don't take me wrong, I don't want to whine nor offend anyone here. I think that Ingo and other people like Con have done a very great job at optimizing this scheduler. I just wish we could choose one depending on what we want to do with it. Just my 2 cents, Willy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 20:45 ` Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-03 21:17 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 21:48 ` Joel Becker 2003-12-03 22:08 ` Ed Sweetman 2003-12-04 0:34 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 1 sibling, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: willy; +Cc: linux-kernel In article <20031203204518.GA11325@alpha.home.local> you write: | On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote: | | > Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even | > though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in | > that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting | > a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality | > until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until | > it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors | > test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to | > be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year. | | There even are people using 2.2 on production and/or desktop computers. I | know some of them. Many people jumped from 2.2 to 2.4 because of USB, but | since it was backported into 2.2.18, many people prefered to stick to 2.2. I still have a 2.0.30 machine, not network connected, does what I want. | | > As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to | > apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading | > there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't | > seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other | > people's data. | | I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm | really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to | satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the | day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete. | I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster. Just tried that, test11 seems better behaved. I've been running Nick's patches, for general use they work better for me, I can stand a skip a few times a day. | | For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as | each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I | never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it | seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling | their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch | 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up | to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen | lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and | this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what | they really do with it and what they feel. | | Don't take me wrong, I don't want to whine nor offend anyone here. I | think that Ingo and other people like Con have done a very great job | at optimizing this scheduler. I just wish we could choose one depending | on what we want to do with it. It has been proposed, but people more influentional than I, that scheduling be a module with some base doorknob scheduler as default if not better scheduler is chosen. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 21:17 ` bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 21:48 ` Joel Becker 2003-12-03 22:17 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 22:08 ` Ed Sweetman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Joel Becker @ 2003-12-03 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bill davidsen; +Cc: willy, linux-kernel On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM -0500, bill davidsen wrote: > In article <20031203204518.GA11325@alpha.home.local> you write: > | I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm > | really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to > | satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the > | day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete. > | I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster. > > Just tried that, test11 seems better behaved. I've been running Nick's > patches, for general use they work better for me, I can stand a skip a > few times a day. Just another datapoint. On my 300MHz PII laptop, ls and tab completion often hang, taking up 100% CPU on -test11. 2.4.19-pre3-ac2, my 2.4 kernel, doesn't even blip the CPU. That said, -test11 performs much better than 2.4.2[01], which used to pause the system entirely for 30 seconds or more. If there are any knobs I can turn to tweak this, I'm interested. Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #347 "Never waste the oppourtunity to tell someone you love them." Joel Becker Senior Member of Technical Staff Oracle Corporation E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 21:48 ` Joel Becker @ 2003-12-03 22:17 ` bill davidsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: bill davidsen @ 2003-12-03 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel In article <20031203214819.GD11065@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>, Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> wrote: | Just another datapoint. On my 300MHz PII laptop, ls and tab | completion often hang, taking up 100% CPU on -test11. 2.4.19-pre3-ac2, | my 2.4 kernel, doesn't even blip the CPU. That's funny! I'm running 2.4.19-pre2-ac2 plus three patches which solved something I'd have to rethink to describe. But most of my laptops suspend fine with APM and 2.4, and suspend fine with 2.6 and ACPI but never return to life... I realize APM is depreciated with 2.6, so I'm resigned to 2.4 on those machines. | That said, -test11 performs much better than 2.4.2[01], which | used to pause the system entirely for 30 seconds or more. | If there are any knobs I can turn to tweak this, I'm interested. The last time I tried Nick's patches was on test15, there are only so many hours in my day, and my best test machine is slow enough to discourage building a lot of kernels. You might see if his version 15 patches will work on test11, or if test10-mm1 works better for you. Since you're looking for knobs... You might also look at the swappiness (/proc/sys/vm/swappiness) to see if that changes the stuff which bugs you. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 21:17 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 21:48 ` Joel Becker @ 2003-12-03 22:08 ` Ed Sweetman 2003-12-04 5:21 ` Willy Tarreau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Ed Sweetman @ 2003-12-03 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bill davidsen; +Cc: willy, linux-kernel bill davidsen wrote: > In article <20031203204518.GA11325@alpha.home.local> you write: > | On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote: > | > | > Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even > | > though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in > | > that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting > | > a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality > | > until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until > | > it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors > | > test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to > | > be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year. > | > | There even are people using 2.2 on production and/or desktop computers. I > | know some of them. Many people jumped from 2.2 to 2.4 because of USB, but > | since it was backported into 2.2.18, many people prefered to stick to 2.2. > > I still have a 2.0.30 machine, not network connected, does what I want. > | > | > As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to > | > apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading > | > there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't > | > seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other > | > people's data. > | > | I second this. I've already tested several 2.5 and 2.6-test, and I'm > | really deceived by the scheduler. It looks a lot more as a hack to > | satisfy xmms users than something usable. I'm doing 'ls -ltr' all the > | day in directories filled with 2000 files, and it takes ages to complete. > | I'm even at the point to which I add a "|tail" to make things go faster. > > Just tried that, test11 seems better behaved. I've been running Nick's > patches, for general use they work better for me, I can stand a skip a > few times a day. > | > | For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as > | each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I > | never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it > | seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling > | their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch > | 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up > | to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen > | lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and > | this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what > | they really do with it and what they feel. The windows can freeze for many reasons. You could be running X in a lower priority, painting X terms is heavy on X using that command and it can steal cpu from the terminal who's process is working in retrieving data from the fs. No dma on the hdds, Etc. I ran this command using test11 with akpm's test10-mm1 patch applied and 10 were going just fine. All going at the same time along with mplayer playing a divx movie. No skips in video or audio and all the terminals were updating as rapidly as they could with no pauses of noticable length. The schedular is nothing short of incredibly better than 2.4.x and prior. Despite the xmms croud's loud cries of trying to get the kernel to fix their player's performance which seems to always suffer more than any other player i've tried. > | Don't take me wrong, I don't want to whine nor offend anyone here. I > | think that Ingo and other people like Con have done a very great job > | at optimizing this scheduler. I just wish we could choose one depending > | on what we want to do with it. > > It has been proposed, but people more influentional than I, that > scheduling be a module with some base doorknob scheduler as default if > not better scheduler is chosen. having to manually adjust the schedular is seen by many as a fault in the design of the schedular. The perfect schedular would be able to adjust itself automatically on it's own. If that's perfect, then even if it's likely impossible to achieve it, it makes sense to strive to get as close to it as possible rather than create a set of separate schedulars which the root user (which really shouldn't be doing anything on the system all the time anyway) has to select whenever their workload changes from one goal to another. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 22:08 ` Ed Sweetman @ 2003-12-04 5:21 ` Willy Tarreau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-04 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ed Sweetman; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:08:55PM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: > The windows can freeze for many reasons. You could be running X in a > lower priority, painting X terms is heavy on X using that command and it > can steal cpu from the terminal who's process is working in retrieving > data from the fs. No dma on the hdds, Etc. sorry I gave no info. disk is SCSI and is *not* sollicited at all because everything fits in cache. If I was speaking about the scheduler, it's because it's really a CU scheduling behaviour and not an I/O scheduling behaviour. I never changed my X priority, and in 2.4, all windows are fluid because timeslices are evenly distributed. > I ran this command using > test11 with akpm's test10-mm1 patch applied and 10 were going just fine. > All going at the same time along with mplayer playing a divx movie. No > skips in video or audio and all the terminals were updating as rapidly > as they could with no pauses of noticable length. bingo ! you're in the exact case where people try to detect skips in their players. I suspect that your player and your xterms don't go too fast and are detected as interactive task by the scheduler. So they don't go very fast, but they are all fluid. Now if you can feed saturate a CPU by feeding 6000 lines/s to an xterm during 1 minute and can repeat this on 10 xterms, they won't become interactive at all, and now you'll see that some of them scroll smoothly while others are stopped. If you put your pointer into them and strike a key, they often start again. > The schedular is nothing short of incredibly better than 2.4.x and > prior. I also think it's better for many workloads. I only say that we can easily identify *some* workloads for which it simply fails to be fair, and although these workload are not more representative than xmms while compiling a kernel, they might match other applications' behaviour. For instance, I don't know if a system which runs all the day at 100% CPU compressing logs asynchronously won't suffer from this. > Despite the xmms croud's loud cries of trying to get the kernel > to fix their player's performance which seems to always suffer more than > any other player i've tried. I totally agree. I've used mpg123 from my old P166+ years ago, to my dual xp1800 and on my notebooks, I've also tried madplay, and I've yet to hear what a skip sounds like. > having to manually adjust the schedular is seen by many as a fault in > the design of the schedular. The perfect schedular would be able to > adjust itself automatically on it's own. I don't agree here. No system knows better than the admin what he's doing. If this was the case, the 'nice' command would never have been invented. > if it's likely impossible to achieve it, it makes sense to strive to get > as close to it as possible rather than create a set of separate > schedulars which the root user (which really shouldn't be doing anything > on the system all the time anyway) has to select whenever their workload > changes from one goal to another. The root you're talking about is also the same person who installs a server for a dedicated task and sometimes the same person who discovered a profund scheduling problem on the same system two racks away. As long as your systems don't share their experiences, it's up to the humans to tell them. Willy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-03 20:45 ` Willy Tarreau 2003-12-03 21:17 ` bill davidsen @ 2003-12-04 0:34 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-12-04 5:33 ` Willy Tarreau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-04 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Willy Tarreau; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Willy Tarreau wrote: | On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:01:39PM +0000, bill davidsen wrote: | For instance, time typically reports 0.03u, 0.03s, 2.8 real. It seems as | each line sent to xterm consumes one full clock tick doing nothing. I | never reported it yet because I don't have time to investigate, and it | seems more important that people don't hear skips in xmms while compiling | their kernel with "make -j 256" on a 16 MB machine. Second test : launch | 10 times : xterm -e "find /" & and look how some windows freeze for up | to 10 seconds... I don't think this is a problem right now. We've seen | lots of work in the scheduler area, many people proposing theirs, and | this will stabilize once 2.6 is out and people start to describe what | they really do with it and what they feel. Well, I had to try that here. I've got a Celeron 650Mhz with 320MB ram and a crappy 14GB HD and yes the finds in the xterms are stopping for some time ... BUT X is 100% responsive. there is no sluggishness, I can use mozilla, etc without a problem. so seriously, who makes 10 finds at the same time and finds are read from FS (I have XFS) so it might be a problem with that. So I don't think the scheduler is bad, I think it is great. When I switched to 2.5 the first time on that box it was like "WOW", so little swapping and KDE is so smooth ... thats so wow ... Still there are some minor problems (japanese keyboard eg) but that will smooth out when Programs get adapted. But for your problem, it might get better for these kind of things in later versions :) - -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/zoEPjBz/yQjBxz8RAjsEAKCO3Nvs/5r/6HgRh9Z83T2SlQmfIgCfQHl5 jbHM0IQVD/buJjD/I2Shv9k= =YOth -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-04 0:34 ` Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-04 5:33 ` Willy Tarreau 2003-12-04 10:13 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-04 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clemens Schwaighofer; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:34:23AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > Well, I had to try that here. I've got a Celeron 650Mhz with 320MB ram > and a crappy 14GB HD and yes the finds in the xterms are stopping for > some time ... BUT X is 100% responsive. there is no sluggishness, I can > use mozilla, etc without a problem. so seriously, who makes 10 finds at > the same time and finds are read from FS (I have XFS) so it might be a > problem with that. This exact workload is probably not needed by anybody. But my concern is that if it fails here, then possibily other realistic workloads will fail too. But since it's hard to identify, that's why I'm waiting for distros to ship first releases, and for a few people to tell us about particular cases where they are annoyed. Ingo, Con, Nick and others obviously cannot make the greatest scheduler in the world without valuable feedback. And I have the feeling that all they got was "bad...bad...bad.. STOP!! don't touch anything, XMMS is now great". Production workloads are typically different. Perhaps my 10 xterms produce the same type of load as 10 persons grepping gigs of logs from memory ? And perhaps my "ls -ltr" produce the same workload as... someone searching a recent file with "ls -ltr". > So I don't think the scheduler is bad, I think it is > great. When I switched to 2.5 the first time on that box it was like > "WOW", so little swapping and KDE is so smooth ... thats so wow ... I too think it's great and smoother than 2.4. It obviously makes a difference if you use X (and I don't use these KDE, etc...). But the smoothness was also brought to 2.4 by patches such as rmap, preempt, variable-hz. All of them have been merged into 2.6, so we cannot deny that they helped too. > But for your problem, it might get better for these kind of things in > later versions :) -test10 was NOK. I'll try test11, and when I've time I'll try Nick's scheduler too. Cheers, Willy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-04 5:33 ` Willy Tarreau @ 2003-12-04 10:13 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-04 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Willy Tarreau; +Cc: bill davidsen, linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Willy Tarreau wrote: | On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:34:23AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: | Production workloads are typically different. Perhaps my 10 xterms produce | the same type of load as 10 persons grepping gigs of logs from memory ? | And perhaps my "ls -ltr" produce the same workload as... someone searching | a recent file with "ls -ltr" well I don't know, I don't use this box full time, but quite a lot, I do a lot of compiling on it. Run Mozilla, etc on it, copy big files, etc, but I never had any serious "lock" problems, where everthing freezes for a second like I have from time to time in 2.4 |>So I don't think the scheduler is bad, I think it is |>great. When I switched to 2.5 the first time on that box it was like |>"WOW", so little swapping and KDE is so smooth ... thats so wow ... | | | I too think it's great and smoother than 2.4. It obviously makes a difference | if you use X (and I don't use these KDE, etc...). But the smoothness was | also brought to 2.4 by patches such as rmap, preempt, variable-hz. All of | them have been merged into 2.6, so we cannot deny that they helped too. well on my working bux I run 2.4.22-ck3 and this has a lot of preempt workstation speedup stuff inside, but it still freezes from time to time if there is a peak in workload. |>But for your problem, it might get better for these kind of things in |>later versions :) | | -test10 was NOK. I'll try test11, and when I've time I'll try Nick's | scheduler too. well test11 is very smooth. I haven't tried Nick scheduler but I might give it a shot, just to see how the "xterm craziness" goes ... :) - -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/zwjGjBz/yQjBxz8RAmJyAJ4jA3q9yqaYxIjI3PT1ueHHwjUeuACeOWdS Lp4cfDBErPBrd0df27xRygY= =ffb4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 22:20 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-12-02 11:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 11:48 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 15:34 ` Russell Cattelan 1 sibling, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:06:14PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > > > Please do a > > > > > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > > > > > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > > > the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > > > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > > > > > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS > > > > Nathan, > > > > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature. > > > > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed > for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small > and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems. > There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed > during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!) > Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should > be no surprises. Nathan, I remember I have said to you "resend me XFS for 2.4.24-pre". A changed my mind since then... > Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks > (especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged > now). JFS did not touch generic code as I remember. > To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support > XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to, > etc, etc. Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS > themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us > that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users > don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts. Come one, it is not so hard to maintain a patch in a distros kernel. Distros maintain hundreds of patches (even I did maintain hundreds of patches while maintaining Conectiva's RPM). One more patch is not that hard. > From discussions with distributors, a stable 2.6 distribution will > be many months after 2.6.0 is officially released, so these issues > are not going to go away anytime soon. Fine, so people who want XFS go compile 2.6.0 by hand. I'm using test11 on several boxes and its working very well. And 2.6 is much nicer than 2.4 anyway. > So, please merge XFS this time round - its actively developed, has > a large installed user base, and has been maintained outside of 2.4 > for a long time. We have waited patiently as each release goes by > for you to give us the nod, and have been knocked back on a number > of occasions while various other merges are being done. Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont like the XFS code in general. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 11:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:48 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 15:34 ` Russell Cattelan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:06:14PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > > > > > Please do a > > > > > > > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > > > > > > > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > > > > the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > > > > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > > > > > > > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS > > > > > > Nathan, > > > > > > I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature. > > > > > > 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. > > > > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > Please reconsider -- the "core" kernel changes we need have existed > > for three+ years outside of the mainline tree, and each is a small > > and easily understood change that doesn't affect other filesystems. > > There is also a VFS fix in there from Ethan Benson, as we discussed > > during 2.4.23-pre, when you asked us to resend XFS for 2.4.24-pre!) > > Everything there is a backport from 2.6 in some form, there should > > be no surprises. > > Nathan, > > I remember I have said to you "resend me XFS for 2.4.24-pre". A changed my > mind since then... > > > Not having XFS in 2.4 is extremely disadvantageous for us XFS folks > > (especially since every other journaled filesystem has been merged > > now). > > JFS did not touch generic code as I remember. > > > To our users it means some rescue disks simply don't support > > XFS, meaning you can't mount filesystems when you _really_ need to, > > etc, etc. Its also always extra work for distributors to merge XFS > > themselves, and hence a few just don't (and occasionally tell us > > that they are waiting for you to merge it) - which means some users > > don't even get the option of using XFS, despite our best efforts. > > Come one, it is not so hard to maintain a patch in a distros kernel. s/one/on/ Ugh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 11:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 11:48 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 15:34 ` Russell Cattelan 2003-12-02 15:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 16:13 ` Jeremy Jackson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Russell Cattelan @ 2003-12-02 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: [snip] > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont > like the XFS code in general. Ahh so the real truth comes out. Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated reasons? -- Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 15:34 ` Russell Cattelan @ 2003-12-02 15:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 16:10 ` Darrell Michaud 2003-12-02 18:01 ` Russell Cattelan 2003-12-02 16:13 ` Jeremy Jackson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell Cattelan Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Russell Cattelan wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > [snip] > > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont > > like the XFS code in general. > Ahh so the real truth comes out. > > > Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? I always disliked the XFS code. > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated > reasons? I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, and shouldnt matter. The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that can break something. Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 15:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 16:10 ` Darrell Michaud 2003-12-02 16:21 ` Austin Gonyou 2003-12-02 16:28 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-12-02 18:01 ` Russell Cattelan 1 sibling, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Darrell Michaud @ 2003-12-02 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in the official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready" for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain environments for a long time, if only because it's easier to upgrade a 2.4 kernel to a newer 2.4 kernel than to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel. It seems like an easy case to make. I use other filesystems and some funky drivers as well.. and I'm always very happy to see useful backports show up in the 2.4 tree. Thank you! On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:50, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Russell Cattelan wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > [snip] > > > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont > > > like the XFS code in general. > > Ahh so the real truth comes out. > > > > > > Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? > > I always disliked the XFS code. > > > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated > > reasons? > > I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, and > shouldnt matter. > > The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that > can break something. > > Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? > -- Darrell Michaud <dmichaud@wsi.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 16:10 ` Darrell Michaud @ 2003-12-02 16:21 ` Austin Gonyou 2003-12-02 16:28 ` Jeff Garzik 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Austin Gonyou @ 2003-12-02 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darrell Michaud Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, XFS List, Andrew Morton I second this as well. I'm sure there are others. XFS is a good option to have for official FS inclusion and I'm *very* happy it's in 2.6. If it were in 2.4, that *may* make adoption of 2.6 for some, slow in coming along. While that may be true, I see that most will eventually want to take advantage of all 2.6 has to offer, but if XFS were in the official tree, then that may be one less piece of guess work needed when upgrading from 2.4 to 2.6 with regards to FS maintenance. (i.e. same version of XFS in both trees == possible same reliability, etc) On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:10, Darrell Michaud wrote: > As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in > the > official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready" > for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain environments > for > a long time, if only because it's easier to upgrade a 2.4 kernel to a > newer 2.4 kernel than to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel. It seems like an > easy > case to make. > > I use other filesystems and some funky drivers as well.. and I'm > always > very happy to see useful backports show up in the 2.4 tree. Thank you! > > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:50, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Russell Cattelan wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and > I dont > > > > like the XFS code in general. > > > Ahh so the real truth comes out. > > > > > > > > > Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? > > > > I always disliked the XFS code. > > > > > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or > unstated > > > reasons? > > > > I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, > and > > shouldnt matter. > > > > The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure > if that > > can break something. > > > > Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? > > > -- > Darrell Michaud <dmichaud@wsi.com> -- Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com> Coremetrics, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 16:10 ` Darrell Michaud 2003-12-02 16:21 ` Austin Gonyou @ 2003-12-02 16:28 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-12-02 16:57 ` venom 2003-12-02 17:41 ` Stefan Smietanowski 1 sibling, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-12-02 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darrell Michaud Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:10:43AM -0500, Darrell Michaud wrote: > As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in the > official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready" > for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain environments for > a long time, if only because it's easier to upgrade a 2.4 kernel to a > newer 2.4 kernel than to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel. It seems like an easy > case to make. > > I use other filesystems and some funky drivers as well.. and I'm always > very happy to see useful backports show up in the 2.4 tree. Thank you! This can also be done in patch form, as it is done now :) There are several pieces of backported software that are integration-ready, but that doesn't imply they should go into an increasingly-frozen 2.4.x tree... Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 16:28 ` Jeff Garzik @ 2003-12-02 16:57 ` venom 2003-12-02 17:41 ` Stefan Smietanowski 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: venom @ 2003-12-02 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Darrell Michaud, Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > This can also be done in patch form, as it is done now :) > of course. 2.4 systems that are already using XFS as a patch probably would have a benefit to see it integrated into 2.4 kernel, but they would is it anyway as a patch. I do not think the merge would be usefull thinking to a from2.4/to2.6 upgrade. In fact, if a system is not using XFS already, it is difficoult that a filesystem is changed if it is an upgrade and not a reinstallation. So, at the end, to have XFS just as a patch for 2.4 is not so bad. Luigi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 16:28 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-12-02 16:57 ` venom @ 2003-12-02 17:41 ` Stefan Smietanowski 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Stefan Smietanowski @ 2003-12-02 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Darrell Michaud, Marcelo Tosatti, Russell Cattelan, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:10:43AM -0500, Darrell Michaud wrote: > >>As a user it would be very beneficial for me to have XFS support in the >>official 2.4 kernel tree. XFS been stable and "2.4 integration-ready" >>for a long time, and 2.4 is going to be used in certain environments for >>a long time, if only because it's easier to upgrade a 2.4 kernel to a >>newer 2.4 kernel than to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel. It seems like an easy >>case to make. >> >>I use other filesystems and some funky drivers as well.. and I'm always >>very happy to see useful backports show up in the 2.4 tree. Thank you! > > > This can also be done in patch form, as it is done now :) > > There are several pieces of backported software that are > integration-ready, but that doesn't imply they should go into an > increasingly-frozen 2.4.x tree... Good point, however the XFS code has been ready for way longer than some other things that were integrated have existed at all. There was a question to merge XFS before 2.4 but the answer was no then. That was eons ago and reiserfs and JFS has made it in since then but not XFS. That strikes me as odd. Everybody have been patient and changing the code according to how it might get accepted and it still hasn't been merged. Many people have run XFS for a long time and while they can use the same way they do now (xfs-patches or precompiled RPM) I don't see a motivation not to include it, especially seeing that other filesystems got in. True XFS touches some generic code but if that really is an issue, why don't people sit down and look at the changes (again) and see what can be changed. If that's the reason. // Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 15:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 16:10 ` Darrell Michaud @ 2003-12-02 18:01 ` Russell Cattelan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Russell Cattelan @ 2003-12-02 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 09:50, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Russell Cattelan wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > [snip] > > > Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont > > > like the XFS code in general. > > Ahh so the real truth comes out. > > > > > > Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? > > I always disliked the XFS code. > > > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or unstated > > reasons? > > I dont like the style of the code. Thats a personal issue, though, and > shouldnt matter. True... so are you basing your decision to not include it on some thing technical or just your personal feeling? which in your words "shouldn't matter" > > The bigger point is that XFS touches generic code and I'm not sure if that > can break something. We have taken great pain to make sure the generic code changes do not logically change any code paths. Everything is either new code paths only used by XFS or very careful conditionals on flags only set by XFS. Some of the changes that were made to generic code was done because it was the right way to it. It would certainly would be possible pull many of the needed changes back into fs/xfs but then there would be duplicated code that could potentially be wrong if somebody changes the generic routines. (core locking differences in different kernels have bitten us in the past, RedHat kernel are good at this) If you really have issues with any of the core changes please make some suggestions it's possible things could be done differently. > > Why it matters so much for you to have XFS in 2.4 ? Well if you follow that logic then why did any of the other filesystems go in? in fact why would any new subsystems go in? Everybody maintaining a large pile of patches should be sufficient to call something linux? Take anybody list of reasons for inclusion into core. Acceptance Larger audience, possible exposure in other projects that won't look at XFS due the extra work of merging their patches with ours Ease the support work needed to integrate with all the different distro More feed back for interfaces ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 15:34 ` Russell Cattelan 2003-12-02 15:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-02 16:13 ` Jeremy Jackson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Jeremy Jackson @ 2003-12-02 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell Cattelan Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Nathan Scott, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, Andrew Morton I think the dislike is justified. XFS is kind of like an alien parasite attached to Linux. IRIX's IO system is different, it's taken a lot of changes. I still think it is the best filesystem with a lot of unused potential though. I hope it will eventually be well integrated - 2.6/2.8. It's only the generic code changes we need to worry about though, right? Regards, Jeremy Jackson Russell Cattelan wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > [snip] > >>Also I'm not completly sure if the generic changes are fine and I dont >>like the XFS code in general. > > Ahh so the real truth comes out. > > > Is there a reason for your sudden dislike of the XFS code? > or is this just an arbitrary general dislike for unknown or > unstated reasons? > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott @ 2003-12-02 0:51 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-12-02 1:26 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter 2 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-02 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Nathan Scott, linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marcelo Tosatti wrote: | Nathan, | | I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature. | | 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. It is not. It is still in development, and even if a 2.6.0 is released I just think back to 2.4.0, just because it is called stable doesn't make it stable. I am sure it will need at least half a year for the major distros (RedHat, Novell/SuSe, Mandrake) to pick it up. Perhaps some others more earlier (Gentoo who knows), some never (Debian), but still, in the mean time it is always a bit tricky with kernel updats here. Either I patch it with the SGI and might have troubles with other patches, or I take the -ac (which didn't work last time because of some driver problems with the HP/Compaq Raid) or I take the -ck which is a Desktop patchset and not a server patchset ... Well in just my opinion XFS should go into 2.4 (and not only because ALL other FS are in there already). 2.4 will be the main kernel for quite some more time and always come up with the argument "but 2.6 is so ready" doesn't help ... - -- Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration ========================================================== Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 http://www.tequila.jp ========================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/y+IKjBz/yQjBxz8RAlmAAJ44ixaLQ0UWX+y3pfM3AGJplJ/VdwCfSHP8 ghIZWUtwQhg+ZHU/iN4obzI= =KfM2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-02 0:51 ` Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-02 1:26 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Marcos D. Marado Torres @ 2003-12-02 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clemens Schwaighofer; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: [...] > time it is always a bit tricky with kernel updats here. Either I patch > it with the SGI and might have troubles with other patches, or I take > the -ac (which didn't work last time because of some driver problems > with the HP/Compaq Raid) or I take the -ck which is a Desktop patchset > and not a server patchset ... [...] As a replacement to the -ac patches, you can allways use the -pac patches (currently 2.4.23-pac1). Greetings, Mind Booster Noori - -- ================================================== Marcos Daniel Marado Torres AKA Mind Booster Noori /"\ http://student.dei.uc.pt/~marado \ / marado@student.dei.uc.pt X ASCII Ribbon Campaign / \ against HTML e-mail and Micro$oft attachments ================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE/y+pbmNlq8m+oD34RAg2hAJ48v2ZqMNxsHIcepJPttZo1Qk+kJgCfWh6c jccDjXLdPDBUncc014Ce104= =0+lU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-02 0:51 ` Clemens Schwaighofer @ 2003-12-14 1:08 ` Jan Rychter 2003-12-14 1:01 ` Roberto Sanchez ` (4 more replies) 2 siblings, 5 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Jan Rychter @ 2003-12-14 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1681 bytes --] >>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes: [...] Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 a try on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even more annoying. I hit the following problems: -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, but the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, about "sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1856, -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could be solved), -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me, -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) are not 2.6-ready, so no telephony support for me, -- I have just frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and doing a simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time. I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, still lacking. So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade. So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main developers do). --J. [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter @ 2003-12-14 1:01 ` Roberto Sanchez 2003-12-14 11:23 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-12-14 1:53 ` Daniel Gryniewicz ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14 1:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2869 bytes --] Jan Rychter wrote: >>>>>>"Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes: > > [...] > Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. > > Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 a try > on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even more > annoying. I hit the following problems: > > -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, but > the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, about > "sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1856, I have an nForce2 w/ Radeon 9000. No problems w/ DRI drivers (included in kernel) or thi ATI supplied drivers, which ATI says successfully compiled against 2.6.0-test6. > -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could > be solved), Make sure you have all the different module options turned on. In 2.6 there are different options for loading, unloading and force unloading modules. > -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me, I don't know anything about video input. Did you try Google? > -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) are not 2.6-ready, so > no telephony support for me, I don't know anything about telephony. Did you try Google? > -- I have just frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and > doing a simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time. What CPU/chipset do you have? There are timing issues with nForce2 and AMD CPUs. A quick search of the LKML archives will yield lots of discussion and patcheson this issue. > > I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also need, > and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. Not to > mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely different set of > issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, still lacking. VMWare won't work (according to the VMWare tech support people), but they will (probably) support 2.6 kernels in their next point release. I assume you are talking about their workstation product. SWSusp works fine on my laptop. > > So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in > running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement > that I could see that would justify the upgrade. But there is plenty of improvement for plenty of people. > > So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* > stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people > have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually > been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main > developers do). I doubt I have the same hardware as the main developers, but I did read the documentation. Did you? Even if it is stable enough for most people, it is still a beta kernel. > > --J. -Roberto. [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 1:01 ` Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14 11:23 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-12-14 18:09 ` Daniel Gryniewicz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Måns Rullgård @ 2003-12-14 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Roberto Sanchez <rcsanchez97@yahoo.es> writes: >> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also >> need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to >> work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely >> different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, >> still lacking. > VMWare won't work I've run vmware on a 2.6 kernel. I found a little patch somewhere that made it work. -- Måns Rullgård mru@kth.se ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 11:23 ` Måns Rullgård @ 2003-12-14 18:09 ` Daniel Gryniewicz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Daniel Gryniewicz @ 2003-12-14 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Måns Rullgård; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 06:23, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Roberto Sanchez <rcsanchez97@yahoo.es> writes: > > >> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also > >> need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to > >> work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely > >> different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, > >> still lacking. > > VMWare won't work > > I've run vmware on a 2.6 kernel. I found a little patch somewhere > that made it work. Gentoo automatically applies this patch. :) -- Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter 2003-12-14 1:01 ` Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14 1:53 ` Daniel Gryniewicz 2003-12-14 2:01 ` coderman ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Daniel Gryniewicz @ 2003-12-14 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Rychter; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 20:08, Jan Rychter wrote: <snip> > So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* > stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people > have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually > been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main > developers do). I have a brand-spanken-new laptop (less than a month old), and all my hardware works great. In fact, ATI drivers (only in pre-release X) only work on 2.6, and ACPI never worked on 2.4. So, it works better for me than on 2.4. Please be careful when saying that 2.4 is better than 2.6, it's only that way for a narrow set of hardware. -- Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter 2003-12-14 1:01 ` Roberto Sanchez 2003-12-14 1:53 ` Daniel Gryniewicz @ 2003-12-14 2:01 ` coderman 2003-12-14 20:23 ` tabris 2003-12-14 7:05 ` Voicu Liviu 2003-12-14 11:24 ` Frederik Deweerdt 4 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: coderman @ 2003-12-14 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Jan Rychter wrote: >So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in >running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement >that I could see that would justify the upgrade. > >So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* >stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people >have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually >been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main >developers do). > > For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features. 2.6 works great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including: - PII-266 - SMP dual PIII-550 - M10000 mini-itx - 1.1 Ghz Athlon all with a variety of video chipsets, USB devices, IDE / ATAPI disks and CD/DVD, sound cards, etc. I doubt many of these are consistent with the main developers. 2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility of the branch for others. I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt, IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 2:01 ` coderman @ 2003-12-14 20:23 ` tabris 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: tabris @ 2003-12-14 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: coderman; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 13 December 2003 9:01 pm, coderman wrote: > Jan Rychter wrote: > >So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever > > in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no > > improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade. > > > >So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* > >stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those > > people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has > > actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the > > main developers do). > > For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others > who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features. 2.6 works > great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including: Somehow, working for 2/3, or even 75% of cases is less than encouraging to me. Especially if I must not only set up boxes that I may not touch physically for days, weeks, etc. Or I suggest which kernel for other people to use, due to security fixes (which, iirc, not all 2.4 fixes have been forward ported yet), features, etc. 2.6 is... getting there. and I DO much appreciate the work of the developers. But with devfs deprecated, udev still coming into its own (Nice work GregKG btw); with the myriad of (user visible) input layer changes; the change in focus on initrds (it used to be a nice thing that only serious people use. Now, although still optional, it is now becoming much more important). Or mebbe consider that the last time I tried to install the new modutils (I'm blaming my distro vendor for this), it broke my 2.4 modutils, requiring me to boot with init=/bin/sh and fix it up. Sure. little things, but altogether, they add up to a lot more work to learn. <snip> > > 2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility > of the branch for others. I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt, > IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile. > - -- tabris - - When asked by an anthropologist what the Indians called America before the white men came, an Indian said simply "Ours." -- Vine Deloria, Jr. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/3May1U5ZaPMbKQcRApmfAJ9IQexnFORYTaOEpTiyPQnHt3qCMgCeJimh 8hR+oaEqXhBXbVB9tRg9g5M= =/Cnp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-12-14 2:01 ` coderman @ 2003-12-14 7:05 ` Voicu Liviu 2003-12-14 16:01 ` Roberto Sanchez 2003-12-14 11:24 ` Frederik Deweerdt 4 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-14 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Rychter; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jan Rychter wrote: |>>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti |>>>>> <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes: | | [...] Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. | | Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 | a try on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even | more annoying. I hit the following problems: | | -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, | but the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, | about "sleeping function called from invalid context at | mm/slab.c:1856, -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though | I'm sure that could be solved), -- bttv does not compile, so no | video input for me, -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) | are not 2.6-ready, so no telephony support for me, -- I have just | frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and doing a | simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time. | | I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also | need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. | Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely | different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, | still lacking. | | So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage | whatsoever in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there | is no improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade. | | So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT* | stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those | people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has | actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as | the main developers do). | | --J. My specs: Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190} Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2 Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0} Fan:Cooler Master +7 Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run console) My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on it (level sound I mean). I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and now I can not move back These are my biggest problems with 2.6. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/3Aurkj4I0Et8EMgRArxCAKDbp0uE5mIhA5/5C+v/71tscWneHQCg0h3R RF2NIf4bbQ3XEMjV6eEePJI= =7jBp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 7:05 ` Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-14 16:01 ` Roberto Sanchez 2003-12-14 17:32 ` Voicu Liviu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --] Voicu Liviu wrote: > My specs: > Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190} > Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2 > Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0} > Fan:Cooler Master +7 > Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB > > My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with > ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run > console) > My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on > it (level sound I mean). > I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and > now I can not move back > > These are my biggest problems with 2.6. Have you treid the in kernel DRI drivers? They work with my Radeon 9000 on an nForce2. Also, why can't you go back to 2.4.23? -Roberto [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 16:01 ` Roberto Sanchez @ 2003-12-14 17:32 ` Voicu Liviu 2003-12-15 7:23 ` Harry McGregor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-14 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roberto Sanchez; +Cc: linux-kernel Roberto Sanchez wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote: > >> My specs: >> Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190} >> Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2 >> Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0} >> Fan:Cooler Master +7 >> Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB >> >> My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with >> ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run >> console) >> My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on >> it (level sound I mean). >> I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and >> now I can not move back >> >> These are my biggest problems with 2.6. > > > > Have you treid the in kernel DRI drivers? They work with my Radeon > 9000 on an nForce2. > > Also, why can't you go back to 2.4.23? Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to lvm1 Any clue? > > -Roberto Liviu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 17:32 ` Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-15 7:23 ` Harry McGregor 2003-12-15 7:51 ` Voicu Liviu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Harry McGregor @ 2003-12-15 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 10:32, Voicu Liviu wrote: > Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to lvm1 > Any clue? How about using the patches for 2.4 to give you LVM2 support? http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/ We have it running on one system right now, in fact it is part of the reason that we manually patched our 2.4.21 to fix the local root exploit that was fixed in 2.4.23, we just had too many external patches (FreeSwan, DeviceMapper, XFS, etc) on that system, to do patch and recompile in a reasonable amount of time. Harry > Liviu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-15 7:23 ` Harry McGregor @ 2003-12-15 7:51 ` Voicu Liviu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-15 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Harry McGregor; +Cc: linux-kernel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Harry McGregor wrote: | On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 10:32, Voicu Liviu wrote: | |> Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to |> lvm1 Any clue? | | | How about using the patches for 2.4 to give you LVM2 support? | | http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/ This url? http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/patches/2.4-stable/2.4.22/2.4.22-dm-1/ I'll just get the 2.4.23 vanilla and patch it? I'll try Thanks | | We have it running on one system right now, in fact it is part of | the reason that we manually patched our 2.4.21 to fix the local | root exploit that was fixed in 2.4.23, we just had too many | external patches (FreeSwan, DeviceMapper, XFS, etc) on that system, | to do patch and recompile in a reasonable amount of time. | | | Harry | |> Liviu | | | | - 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/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/3WgCkj4I0Et8EMgRApIvAKDO8umYrrSqDodby3OWmxwY9x5ejgCg7wZ+ u5SiceDoteNq61XIVK7vD54= =5qUw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-12-14 7:05 ` Voicu Liviu @ 2003-12-14 11:24 ` Frederik Deweerdt 4 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Frederik Deweerdt @ 2003-12-14 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel > -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me, I'm watching TV on 2.6.0-test11 with bttv properly loaded... bttv: driver version 0.9.12 loaded Fred ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 9:24 ` Jens Axboe 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-01 21:00 ` Dan Yocum 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead 2003-12-02 11:02 ` Maciej Soltysiak 2 siblings, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Dan Yocum @ 2003-12-01 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Scott; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs Marcelo, We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until it's really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels. It would be very, very nice to have it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI. Thanks, Dan Nathan Scott wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > > Please do a > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS > > This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting > the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, > then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) > > bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS > > cheers. > -- Dan Yocum Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://www.sdss.org SDSS. Mapping the Universe. You are here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum @ 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead 2003-12-01 22:01 ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad ` (2 more replies) 2003-12-02 11:02 ` Maciej Soltysiak 1 sibling, 3 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Bryan Whitehead @ 2003-12-01 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dan Yocum; +Cc: Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on XFS with v2.4 kernel. Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject... Dan Yocum wrote: > Marcelo, > > We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until it's > really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that > has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here > (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels. It would be very, very nice to have > it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI. > > Thanks, > Dan > > > Nathan Scott wrote: > >> Hi Marcelo, >> >> Please do a >> >> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS >> >> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting >> the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, >> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) >> >> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS >> >> cheers. >> > -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry and Large Optical Systems Phone: 818 354 2903 driver@jpl.nasa.gov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead @ 2003-12-01 22:01 ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad 2003-12-01 22:13 ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 2003-12-02 2:54 ` Joshua Schmidlkofer 2 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey E. Hundstad @ 2003-12-01 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan Whitehead Cc: Dan Yocum, Nathan Scott, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs I'd like to add my vote also. I've been using XFS for years. The XFS patches work well. But having them in the standard kernel would be very nice. -- jeffrey hundstad Bryan Whitehead wrote: > I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on > XFS with v2.4 kernel. > > Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without > having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject... > > Dan Yocum wrote: > >> Marcelo, >> >> We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until >> it's really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official >> distro that has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS >> filesystems here (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels. It would be very, >> very nice to have it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI. >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> >> Nathan Scott wrote: >> >>> Hi Marcelo, >>> >>> Please do a >>> >>> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS >>> >>> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting >>> the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, >>> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) >>> >>> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS >>> >>> cheers. >>> >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead 2003-12-01 22:01 ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad @ 2003-12-01 22:13 ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 2003-12-02 2:54 ` Joshua Schmidlkofer 2 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi @ 2003-12-01 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan Whitehead; +Cc: yocum, nathans, marcelo.tosatti, linux-kernel, linux-xfs On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:50:08 -0800, Bryan Whitehead wrote: >I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on >XFS with v2.4 kernel. > >Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without >having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject... > Yes, exactly. Ok the XFS changes some vfs code, but works OK, and is in the -ac and -ck trees. And another point is make the possiblility to add some patchs such as security without hunks failed, and another funny hacks. And the majority of distros include it. Another vote. chau, djgera >Dan Yocum wrote: >> Marcelo, >> >> We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until it's >> really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that >> has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here >> (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels. It would be very, very nice to have >> it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI. >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> >> Nathan Scott wrote: >> >>> Hi Marcelo, >>> >>> Please do a >>> >>> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS >>> >>> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting >>> the XFS filesystem, as listed below. If this all looks acceptable, >>> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*) >>> >>> bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS >>> >>> cheers. >>> >> > > >-- >Bryan Whitehead >SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry and Large Optical Systems >Phone: 818 354 2903 >driver@jpl.nasa.gov -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.vmlinuz.com.ar http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead 2003-12-01 22:01 ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad 2003-12-01 22:13 ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi @ 2003-12-02 2:54 ` Joshua Schmidlkofer 2 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Joshua Schmidlkofer @ 2003-12-02 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan Whitehead; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 13:50, Bryan Whitehead wrote: > I'd like to "third" this request. Have a large amount of data here on > XFS with v2.4 kernel. > > Would be nice to be able to use pre-release 2.4 for testing without > having to manually hack in XFS paches from SGI for the odd reject... > > Dan Yocum wrote: > > Marcelo, > > > > We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until it's > > really stable (read as, Red Hat comes out with an official distro that > > has it built in), and we already have *a lot* of XFS filesystems here > > (~>300TB) running on 2.4 kernels. It would be very, very nice to have > > it in the 2.4 tree without having to pull it from SGI. > > > > Thanks, > > Dan I would like to 'me too' - like some brain dead aoler. I have 40+ machines which use XFS, and I have used it since the 1.0 was released. There are various servers, running a variety of services, etc. I think that the SGI team has done a fantastic job of supporting 2.4, and I have been using with no problems since 2.4.12. I don't want to dis anyone either, but XFS is the filesystem that I use because it is stable, and reliable, and IMHO mature. I appreciate ext3, Reiser, and especially JFS! However, XFS was ready first, and it was a great disappointment not to see it in 2.4. 2.4 was truly a kernel of pain in the beginning, and I repect the decision not to include it up till now. Not that it matters, but I will respect the decision of the 2.4 maintainers on this. I do ask for 2.4, as a person who uses XFS on all my personal, friends, mom's, and clients' systems. Some of my clients will not use it because it is not in the vanilla tree. Please reconsider on behalf of a wide body of users. thanks, Joshua Schmidlkofer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS for 2.4 2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead @ 2003-12-02 11:02 ` Maciej Soltysiak 1 sibling, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: Maciej Soltysiak @ 2003-12-02 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel > We (Fermilab) second this request. We won't be touching 2.6 until it's I, an ordinary user, also second it. I have been using XFS, but some day I just got tired of patching the kernel and backed up the data and switched to other filesystem. I really liked XFS. Regards, Maciej ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <fa.iaibikf.1l5injd@ifi.uio.no>]
[parent not found: <fa.m5245vp.h0ukb5@ifi.uio.no>]
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 [not found] ` <fa.m5245vp.h0ukb5@ifi.uio.no> @ 2003-12-15 10:56 ` Anssi Saari 2003-12-15 17:25 ` David Ford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread From: Anssi Saari @ 2003-12-15 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel > -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could > be solved), I've had this too, with autofs4 and 3c59x. After patching lirc into the kernel, the only real issue is with the console. I found a patch for radeonfb, but didn't get anywhere with it. The rest of my problems is userland stuff: - Murasaki (a hotplug agent) doesn't react when USB things are plugged in - swapon -a takes two minutes to complete for some reason - rpc.lockd doesn't start, it says lockdsvc: Function not implemented. I don't know if I really need this anyway, nfs seems to work fine - zsh doesn't complete make targets like menuconfig - I'd also like to point out that cdrecord isn't sufficient for my CD writing needs, I need cdrdao too and it doesn't seem to support direct access to ATAPI drives. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 2003-12-15 10:56 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Anssi Saari @ 2003-12-15 17:25 ` David Ford 0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread From: David Ford @ 2003-12-15 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: as; +Cc: linux-kernel Partial comments below Anssi Saari wrote: >> -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could >> be solved), >> >> > >I've had this too, with autofs4 and 3c59x. After patching lirc into the >kernel, the only real issue is with the console. I found a patch for radeonfb, >but didn't get anywhere with it. > >The rest of my problems is userland stuff: > >- Murasaki (a hotplug agent) doesn't react when USB things are plugged in > > You need to update your hotplug installation. Turn on debugging in your hotplug scripts and copy the appropriate object ID numbers into the usb.usermap file. >- swapon -a takes two minutes to complete for some reason > > Try recreating your swapon partition/file? Turning on a gig of swap here happens pretty quick. >- rpc.lockd doesn't start, it says lockdsvc: Function not implemented. I don't > > Update/rebuild your rpc/nfs tools. > know if I really need this anyway, nfs seems to work fine >- zsh doesn't complete make targets like menuconfig >- I'd also like to point out that cdrecord isn't sufficient for my > CD writing needs, I need cdrdao too and it doesn't seem to support > direct access to ATAPI drives. > > I haven't used zsh or cdrdao so I can't comment on them. I don't use the above modules, but all the other modules on my system (numerous) do autoload just fine. NFS is a big PITA for me for other reasons but the services do start. My systems are of the Gentoo flavor. David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-15 17:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 57+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-12-01 6:20 XFS for 2.4 Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 9:24 ` Jens Axboe 2003-12-01 9:44 ` Stefan Smietanowski 2003-12-01 9:45 ` Jens Axboe 2003-12-01 14:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-01 22:10 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-01 22:20 ` Larry McVoy 2003-12-02 0:23 ` Nathan Scott 2003-12-02 11:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 18:05 ` Austin Gonyou 2003-12-02 19:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski 2003-12-02 20:05 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 20:16 ` Lawrence Walton 2003-12-03 19:01 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 20:45 ` Willy Tarreau 2003-12-03 21:17 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 21:48 ` Joel Becker 2003-12-03 22:17 ` bill davidsen 2003-12-03 22:08 ` Ed Sweetman 2003-12-04 5:21 ` Willy Tarreau 2003-12-04 0:34 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-12-04 5:33 ` Willy Tarreau 2003-12-04 10:13 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-12-02 11:18 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 11:48 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 15:34 ` Russell Cattelan 2003-12-02 15:50 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2003-12-02 16:10 ` Darrell Michaud 2003-12-02 16:21 ` Austin Gonyou 2003-12-02 16:28 ` Jeff Garzik 2003-12-02 16:57 ` venom 2003-12-02 17:41 ` Stefan Smietanowski 2003-12-02 18:01 ` Russell Cattelan 2003-12-02 16:13 ` Jeremy Jackson 2003-12-02 0:51 ` Clemens Schwaighofer 2003-12-02 1:26 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres 2003-12-14 1:08 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Jan Rychter 2003-12-14 1:01 ` Roberto Sanchez 2003-12-14 11:23 ` Måns Rullgård 2003-12-14 18:09 ` Daniel Gryniewicz 2003-12-14 1:53 ` Daniel Gryniewicz 2003-12-14 2:01 ` coderman 2003-12-14 20:23 ` tabris 2003-12-14 7:05 ` Voicu Liviu 2003-12-14 16:01 ` Roberto Sanchez 2003-12-14 17:32 ` Voicu Liviu 2003-12-15 7:23 ` Harry McGregor 2003-12-15 7:51 ` Voicu Liviu 2003-12-14 11:24 ` Frederik Deweerdt 2003-12-01 21:00 ` XFS for 2.4 Dan Yocum 2003-12-01 21:50 ` Bryan Whitehead 2003-12-01 22:01 ` Jeffrey E. Hundstad 2003-12-01 22:13 ` Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi 2003-12-02 2:54 ` Joshua Schmidlkofer 2003-12-02 11:02 ` Maciej Soltysiak [not found] <fa.iaibikf.1l5injd@ifi.uio.no> [not found] ` <fa.m5245vp.h0ukb5@ifi.uio.no> 2003-12-15 10:56 ` 2.4 vs 2.6 Anssi Saari 2003-12-15 17:25 ` David Ford
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).