XFS

[Net Llama!]

Jerry McBride wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:37:09 -0600 Glenn Williams <n0hn at abq-nm.com> wrote:
>>Hi, Group:
>>
>>Last week someone said (Kurt Wall?) he prefers XFS over ext3, reiserfs
>>and possibly others.  But I didn't see any reasons given for the
>>preference.
>>
>>I can (and will) read some info about XFS on the Internet, but I am more
>>interested in hearing reasons for that choice from group memebers.
>>
> 
> 
> My personal experience with XFS has been quite good. The only hold back is
> the fact that the kernel portion of it is applied as a patch. If your
> favorite kernel version doesn't have an available XFS patch, then you're
> out in the cold unless you cobble your own. Yeah right...

If you're going to patch a kernel, then you should be patching the 
official kernel, not some one else's version.

> For that one, single reason, we've chosen to use EXT3 on the
> commercial/business laptops where I work. It was chosen as an interim
> measure until XFS is directly supported in the kernel like the other file
> systems it has now. EXT3has proven to be quite stable, reliable and very
> easy to implement. EXT3 has performance issues when used in an NFS
> environment, but SAMBA has fixed that. :') 

Samba has some performance issues when used in any environment.

I've been using XFS on two of my boxes for well over a year, and has 
been quite pleased with its stability & performance.  XFS is proven 
industrial strength production code.  The jury is still out on ext3 and 
Reiser.  Also, ext3 still requires an occasional fsck, which XFS does 
not.  Applying the XFS patch to a 2.4.x kernel is very very easy (a 
single patch command), and then you're good to go.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

  11:30am  up 8 days, 18:26,  5 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.38, 0.41