XFS filesystem revisited

[David A. Bandel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:07:28 -0500
"Brett I. Holcomb" <brettholcomb at charter.net> wrote:

> I think that the Gentoo people really don't have much experience with
> XFS at all -they seem to favor ext3.  Yes, on the log - I've seen that
> when I had to do an xfs_repair and it told me that I needed to mount
> then umount to get the log data updated.  Once I did that xfs_repair
> fixed it.  I never want to see another ext2 (and maybe 3 <G>) system.
> 

I suspect that there are some Gentoo followers (those that wrote the
Gentoo XFS nonsense) that follow the OpenMosix lead developer, who also
seems to have a dislike for XFS.  I've compared patches from XFS and
OpenMosix (which clash badly) and there's not a lot of difference, but
there is one or two minor differences (and they really may be major for
all I know) in the handling of the base disk I/O.  One of these
differences involved a variable that for one patch was added inside an
#ifdef by one and outside it by the other (if I remember correctly --
#been a while since I tried to make XFS and OpenMosix play nice
#together).

I've decided to wait for 2.6, when OpenMosix can no longer ignore XFS --
well, they can, they can just not develop OpenMosix for 2.6.

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
- -- 
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
		Nemesis Racing Team motto
GPG key autoresponder:  mailto:david_key at pananix.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/vfM3j31PLQNUbV4RAnWrAJ9uvzulBQPCwmU+3eY6PgheyJEPTQCfV1SV
Emq7KkEqM0jkvlbRzytW/kk=
=TDqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----